Spin polarization of holographic baryon in strongly coupled fluid

Shu Lin; Si-wen Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Spin polarization of holographic baryon in strongly coupled fluid

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A probe baryon in a strongly coupled fluid is spin-polarized in response to fluid acceleration, shear stress, and vorticity, with response structures parallel to weakly coupled kinetic theory.

desk verdict First holographic computation of baryon spin polarization from hydrodynamic gradients; physically plausible and honestly presented, but the main numerical coefficients are not independently checkable from the manuscript. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21883 v1 pith:F5OCV7J3 submitted 2025-05-28 hep-th hep-phnucl-th

Si-wen Li , Shu Lin This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thhep-phnucl-th

keywords spinpolarizationholographicbaryonspectralfunctionfluid-gravitybackgroundgradientexpansionvorticitystronglycoupledplasmaDiracfermion

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

This paper tries to establish that a baryon moving through a strongly coupled fluid becomes spin-polarized in response to the fluid's acceleration, shear stress, and vorticity, and that the pattern of these responses matches weakly coupled kinetic theory. The argument is made by computing the spectral function of a probe holographic baryon---a massless Dirac fermion in the fluid-gravity background---at first order in gradients of fluid velocity and temperature. Gradient corrections are separated into contributions from the baryon's own density matrix and from the medium's local-equilibrium and steady-state density matrices. The paper presents this as the first strongly coupled counterpart to the weakly coupled spin-polarization results, giving concrete response coefficients for phenomenological models of baryon polarization in heavy-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the holographic baryon: a probe built from a massless bulk Dirac field (two Weyl fermions of opposite helicities) placed in the fluid-gravity background, the boosted AdS-Schwarzschild metric corrected to first order in fluid gradients. The machinery is a gradient expansion of the boundary-to-bulk fermionic propagator, organized by the factorized density matrix $D = D_{\text{probe}} \otimes D_{\text{fluid}}$ at the probe limit. Parity transformation (2.8) connects the left- and right-handed Weyl contributions, and the load-bearing identity is the polarization trace $\frac12\operatorname{tr}[(\delta\rho_L+\delta\rho_R)\sigma_k]$ expressed through the acceleration, shear, and vorticity response coefficients in (4.51) and (4.75).

What would settle it

Compute the full first-order gradient correction to the baryon correlation function without assuming factorization of the density matrix; if probe–medium mixing terms survive at $O(\partial_X)$, the separate response coefficients in Table 1 are not physical. A weakly coupled kinetic-theory calculation that includes the steady-state medium and finds a nonzero local-equilibrium shear response would likewise contradict the parity-based zero in that row.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combined left- and right-handed spectral function of a holographic baryon carries the spin-polarization content of Eq. (4.51) together with the medium contributions of Eq. (4.75). Concretely, $\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}[(\delta\rho_L+\delta\rho_R)\sigma_k] = 4\bigl(-\operatorname{Re}[D^a_2]\,\epsilon^{ijk}\hat p_j\partial_0 u_i - \operatorname{Re}[D^\sigma_2]\,\epsilon^{ijk}\hat p_j\hat p_l\sigma_{il} + \operatorname{Im}[D^\omega_1]\,\omega_k + \operatorname{Im}[D^{\omega\parallel}_1]\,\omega^{\parallel}_k\bigr)$, with analogous terms from the fluid's local-equilibrium and steady-state density matrices. This says that even without quasiparticles, a probe baryon in a strongly coupled fluid acquires spin polarization as a first-order response to fluid acceleration, shear stress, and vorticity. The response coefficients are obtained numerically from a gradient expansion of the Dirac equation in the fluid-gravity background, and the tensor structure of the response---which gradients couple to polarization, and through which transverse or longitudinal combinations---reproduces the pattern found in weakly coupled quantum kinetic theory.

Load-bearing premise

The probe baryon and the fluid factorize exactly, $D = D_{\text{probe}} \otimes D_{\text{fluid}}$, at leading order in gradients; if probe and medium do not decouple, the classification of spectral-function corrections into probe, local-equilibrium, and steady-state medium pieces collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Baryon spin polarization from fluid gradients survives in the strong-coupling regime where quasiparticles are absent.
The gradient correction splits into three physical pieces: the probe's own density-matrix correction, the medium's local-equilibrium correction, and the medium's steady-state correction, each with its own response coefficients.
Parity cancels the single-helicity polarization locked to momentum when left- and right-handed parts are combined, so only acceleration, shear, and vorticity responses of specific tensor structure remain.
After normalizing by the equilibrium spectral function, the polarized part is $O(\lambda^0)$ in the 't Hooft coupling, whereas the weakly coupled counterpart is $O(\lambda)$; the coupling dependence is thus different in the two regimes.
The shear response from the medium's local-equilibrium density matrix vanishes at this order, while the medium's steady-state part does contribute to shear-induced polarization.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next check is to repeat the calculation in a top-down baryon model that satisfies the single-particle spectral sum rule; the bottom-up massless Dirac model here is known to violate that rule, so some coefficient values may be model-dependent.
The parity analysis implies that acceleration and shear can only polarize the baryon through Levi-Civita (antisymmetric) contractions with the momentum direction, while vorticity enters both parallel and perpendicular to the momentum; this tensor fingerprint could be used to compare strong- and weak-coupling mechanisms in data.
If the spectral-function response is converted into the measured spin through the lesser function, the size and sign of the computed coefficients could discriminate between quasiparticle and strongly coupled descriptions of the quark-gluon plasma.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is the first holographic calculation of baryon spin polarization from hydrodynamic gradients, and on a careful read it mostly delivers what it claims. The new result is that a probe baryon in a strongly coupled fluid responds to acceleration, shear stress, and vorticity with polarization structures resembling weakly coupled kinetic-theory results. The decomposition of the spectral-function corrections into probe, local-equilibrium, and steady-state medium contributions is genuinely useful and goes beyond the weakly coupled literature.

The paper's strengths are real. The gradient expansion is organized carefully, the parity bookkeeping used to combine the two helicities is clean, and the authors are candid about limitations: they state that the spectral function is not the directly measured lesser function, that massless fermions violate the spectral sum rule, and that the steady-state acceleration EOM is too long to show. The comparison to [21] is a structural benchmark, not an imported or fitted input, and the self-citation there is appropriate.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The principal numerical claim—the coefficient functions in Fig. 3 and Table 1—is not independently checkable from the manuscript. No code, data, or analytic limit checks are provided, and the most load-bearing steady-state coefficient, Re[D2a/6], sits behind an EOM that is explicitly not shown; the boundary condition (4.71) is also unconventional. A determined referee could rederive the equations, but the paper as submitted does not give enough to verify the numbers, and an error in that omitted step would change the headline polarization. Second, the factorization D = D_probe ⊗ D_fluid in the probe limit is asserted and then used to give physical meaning to the splitting. It is plausible, and the internal bookkeeping is consistent, but it is not proven; if probe and medium couple already at leading gradient order, the interpretation in Table 1 would need adjustment. Third, the baryon model is two massless Weyl fermions, which violates the single-particle spectral sum rule and may miss baryon-specific structure. The authors acknowledge this openly, so it is a modeling limitation rather than a hidden flaw.

Who is this for: holographers working on spin/transport and heavy-ion phenomenologists who want a strongly coupled benchmark. The paper deserves a serious referee and should not be desk-rejected. I would ask the authors to release the numerical code or data and to show at least one nontrivial check of the omitted steady-state equation—ideally a consistency condition or a limit where the result can be verified independently.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a holographic study of the spin polarization of a baryon probe moving through a strongly coupled fluid. The baryon is modeled by combining two massless bulk Dirac fermions of opposite helicity in a fluid-gravity background, and the retarded/spectral functions are computed to first order in hydrodynamic gradients. The authors classify corrections according to the density-matrix origin: gradient corrections to the probe density matrix, to the local-equilibrium fluid density matrix, and to the steady-state fluid density matrix. Their main quantitative result is that the combined spin polarization of the baryon spectral function, Eqs. (4.51) and (4.75), responds to fluid acceleration, shear stress, and vorticity through coefficient functions that are computed numerically and displayed in Table 1 and Figs. 2-4. The structure of these responses is compared with weakly coupled quantum kinetic theory, and the paper reports an O(λ^0) scaling of the polarized spectral function versus the O(λ) weak-coupling result.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful first step toward spin polarization in the strongly coupled regime, and it provides a concrete holographic benchmark that can be compared with quantum kinetic theory. The derivation is self-contained and does not fit any target data: the response coefficients are computed from the holographic model, and the comparison to [21] is a structural benchmark rather than an input. The paper also gives a clean classification of the corrections into probe, local-equilibrium fluid, and steady-state fluid contributions, which is conceptually helpful. The main weaknesses are that the central numerical coefficients are not independently reproducible from the text, one key equation is explicitly omitted, and the probe-factorization assumption that underpins the density-matrix interpretation is stated rather than justified. These issues affect the reliability of the headline equations (4.51) and (4.75), but they appear addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.71), Fig. 3] The steady-state acceleration coefficient Re[D^a_6] feeds directly into the central result Eq. (4.75) through the term -4Re[D^a_6] ε^{ijk} p̂_j ∂_0 u_i. The text states that the EOM for this coefficient is "lengthy and not shown explicitly," and the boundary condition (4.71) contains an inhomogeneous term (1/4)∂_0 u_i σ_i G_0(z→0) whose role is not demonstrated. Since a sign or algebraic error in this unshown step would change the sign and magnitude of a headline polarization coefficient, the authors should display the EOM or provide a reproducible ancillary file, and supply at least one nontrivial check such as horizon regularity, Wronskian normalization, or a limiting-case comparison.
[Sec. 2, density-matrix factorization] The entire separation of gradient corrections into D^(1)_probe, D^(1)le_fluid, and D^(1)ss_fluid, and hence the physical interpretation of Table 1, rests on the factorization D = D_probe ⊗ D_fluid introduced in Sec. 2. This factorization is stated without derivation or justification in terms of a controlled limit. The paper should state precisely which limit (for example N_f/N_c or a probe approximation that suppresses backreaction) makes the factorization valid, and should explain why commutator terms involving probe-medium interactions are subleading in the gradient expansion. Without this, the assignment of individual coefficients to specific density-matrix origins is not fully established.
[Secs. 4.2-4.4, Figs. 2-4] The numerical solution procedure for the coefficient functions in Table 1 is not reproducible from the text. For each coefficient, the procedure is described as integrating from the horizon with arbitrary integration constants and then adding homogeneous solutions to satisfy the boundary condition, but the ODE systems, the number of independent horizon-regular solutions, and the matching algorithm are not specified. Since Eqs. (4.51) and (4.75) depend on these numerical results, the paper should include the numerical method, including shooting details, tolerances, grid convergence checks, or release the code and data used to generate Figs. 2-4.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The phrase "the holographic baryonic is polarized" should read "the holographic baryon is polarized" or "the holographic baryonic state is polarized."
[Table 1 and surrounding text] The table is captioned "Table. 4.5" and is referred to as "Table. 4.5" in Secs. 4.5 and 5; it should be numbered consistently as Table 1.
[Eqs. (3.7)-(3.8) and Appendix B] The function F(r) is defined in Eq. (3.8) with argument r, while the metric correction in Eq. (3.7) uses F(br) and Appendix B defines F(r) with the lower limit br. The argument convention should be made consistent.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption describes the coefficients as being for a "local equilibrium state," but the plotted coefficients in Fig. 2 are the ones entering Eq. (4.51), which come from D^(1)_probe; please clarify the distinction between D^(1)_probe and D^(1)le_fluid in the caption.
[Sec. 4.3, text after Eq. (4.60)] The statement "we do not keep terms with the same Dirac structure as G_0 in the source" is imprecise, because the dropped structure p̂_i ∂_0 u_i is spin-independent and not obviously identical to the G_0 structures; rephrase to indicate that the term is dropped because it does not contribute to the traced spin polarization after combining helicities.
[Sec. 4.5, scaling comparison] The comparison of O(λ^0) strong-coupling scaling with O(λ) weak-coupling scaling is interesting, but the text should clarify that both quantities are normalized by the equilibrium spectral function and that the holographic bottom-up model does not determine λ; otherwise the scaling statement may be read as stronger than the model can support.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the holographic response coefficients are computed from the Dirac equation in the fluid-gravity background, with no fitted target data and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central results, Eqs. (4.51) and (4.75), are obtained by a self-contained holographic calculation: gradient expansion of the boundary-bulk Dirac propagator and of the Dirac operator in the fluid-gravity metric, followed by numerical solution of the resulting ODE systems. The coefficients in Table 1 and Figures 2-4 are solved from these ODEs with infalling horizon conditions and boundary conditions derived from the holographic prescription; they are not fitted to any target spin-polarization data and are not imported from the weakly coupled results. The comparison with [21], co-authored by one of the present authors, is explicitly a post-hoc structural benchmark ('It is instructive to compare the present results with counterpart obtained in the weak coupling regime. In [21], polarized spectral function for quarks from gradient corrections has been obtained') and is not used to determine any coefficient. The factorization D = D_probe ⊗ D_fluid in Sec. 2 is an assumption about the probe limit, not a circular re-use of the target result. The omitted lengthy EOM and the unconventional boundary condition (4.71) noted by the skeptic are reproducibility or correctness concerns, not circularity, because they do not reduce the output to the input. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling via citation, or renaming of a known result occurs. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The calculation rests on the standard holographic dictionary plus several modeling assumptions: probe-limit factorization, small gradients, parity of the background, and timelike kinematics. No free parameters are fitted to external data; the only adjustable parameter, m, is set to 0 by model choice.

free parameters (1)

bulk fermion mass m = 0 (chosen by hand)
Set to 0 so that the baryon can be modeled as two Weyl fermions of opposite helicity. This is a modeling choice, not fitted to data, and the paper acknowledges it violates single-particle spectral sum rules.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Density matrix factorizes as D = D_probe ⊗ D_fluid
Stated in Sec. 2; this underlies the separation of gradient corrections into probe and medium density matrices.
domain assumption Wigner transform valid for ω,p >> ∂_X
Sec. 2 requires gradients to be small compared to baryon frequency and momentum, allowing a coarse-grained interpretation.
domain assumption Equilibrium medium is parity invariant
Used to relate left- and right-handed spectral functions via Eq. (2.8) and to argue that certain parity-odd structures cancel in the baryon combination.
domain assumption Operator D_x^2 is invertible (P^2 ≠ 0 in the bulk)
Assumed in Sec. 4.1 to perform the formal division in Eq. (4.7); restricts the analysis to timelike momenta.
standard math Standard AdS/CFT fermionic dictionary
The retarded correlator is extracted from the bulk Dirac action using the prescription of [29-32], which the paper follows without re-deriving.

invented entities (1)

Holographic baryon as two massless Weyl fermions
purpose: Probe to study spin polarization in a strongly coupled fluid
Bottom-up model, not a new particle; the massless construction and sum-rule violation limit its physical realism, as the authors acknowledge.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin polarization of holographic baryon in strongly coupled fluid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5OCV7J3

@misc{pith2026250521883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin polarization of holographic baryon in strongly coupled fluid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5OCV7J3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21883}
}

read the original abstract

The spin polarization for baryon in a hydrodynamic medium has been extensively studied in the weakly coupled regime using quantum kinetic theory. As a first study of this problem in the strongly coupled regime, we investigate holographically the spectral function of a probe baryon in the fluid-gravity background. This is done by carefully performing gradient expansion of the Dirac equation in the fluid-gravity background. Different contributions in the expansion are understood in terms of density matrices of the probe baryon and the medium. The resulting spectral functions indicate that the holographic baryonic is polarized as responses to fluid acceleration, shear stress and vorticity. The structures of the responses are similar to those found in weakly coupled studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21883 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** ρ+ versus ω for p = 0.9 plotted in blue. The unit is set by πT = 1. We also plot the counterpart from vacuum spectral function in orange, whose analytic form is known [32]: ρ+ = 2sgn(ω)θ(ω 2 − p 2 ) ω+p ω−p 1/2 . The effect of the medium softens the singularity in vacuum spectral function. AdS-Schwarzschild background, tubes of fluid velocities are related by slow-varying boost. We would obtain the same G0 if we … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The coefficients of gradient correction defined in (4.51) for local equilibrium state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The coefficients of gradient correction defined in (4.72) versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparisons of contributions from the same hydrodynamic gradients listed in Ta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[21]

Spin Polarized Quasi-particle in Off-equilibrium Medium

Shu Lin and Jiayuan Tian. Spin Polarized Quasi-particle in Off-equilibrium Medium. 10 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Globally polarized quark-gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions.Phys

Zuo-Tang Liang and Xin-Nian Wang. Globally polarized quark-gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:102301, 2005. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)]

work page 2006
[2]

Spin alignment of vector mesons in non-central A+A collisions.Phys

Zuo-Tang Liang and Xin-Nian Wang. Spin alignment of vector mesons in non-central A+A collisions.Phys. Lett. B, 629:20–26, 2005

work page 2005
[3]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. Global Λ hyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid.Nature, 548:62–65, 2017

2017
[4]

Becattini, V

F. Becattini, V. Chandra, L. Del Zanna, and E. Grossi. Relativistic distribution function for particles with spin at local thermodynamical equilibrium.Annals Phys., 338:32–49, 2013

2013
[5]

Polarization of massive fermions in a vortical fluid.Phys

Ren-hong Fang, Long-gang Pang, Qun Wang, and Xin-nian Wang. Polarization of massive fermions in a vortical fluid.Phys. Rev. C, 94(2):024904, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Global Λ polarization in heavy- ion collisions from a transport model.Phys

Hui Li, Long-Gang Pang, Qun Wang, and Xiao-Liang Xia. Global Λ polarization in heavy- ion collisions from a transport model.Phys. Rev. C, 96(5):054908, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Thermal vorticity and spin polariza- tion in heavy-ion collisions.Phys

De-Xian Wei, Wei-Tian Deng, and Xu-Guang Huang. Thermal vorticity and spin polariza- tion in heavy-ion collisions.Phys. Rev. C, 99(1):014905, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 37 references

[8]

Shuai Y. F. Liu, Yifeng Sun, and Che Ming Ko. Spin Polarizations in a Covariant Angular- Momentum-Conserved Chiral Transport Model.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(6):062301, 2020

2020
[9]

Becattini and Iu

F. Becattini and Iu. Karpenko. Collective Longitudinal Polarization in Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions at Very High Energy.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(1):012302, 2018. 26

2018
[10]

Nonlinear Responses of Chiral Fluids from Kinetic Theory.Phys

Yoshimasa Hidaka, Shi Pu, and Di-Lun Yang. Nonlinear Responses of Chiral Fluids from Kinetic Theory.Phys. Rev. D, 97(1):016004, 2018

2018
[11]

Shuai Y. F. Liu and Yi Yin. Spin polarization induced by the hydrodynamic gradients. JHEP, 07:188, 2021

2021
[12]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and A. Palermo. Spin-thermal shear coupling in a relativistic fluid.Phys. Lett. B, 820:136519, 2021

2021
[13]

Baochi Fu, Shuai Y. F. Liu, Longgang Pang, Huichao Song, and Yi Yin. Shear-Induced Spin Polarization in Heavy-Ion Collisions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(14):142301, 2021

2021
[14]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, and A. Palermo. Local Polarization and Isothermal Local Equilibrium in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(27):272302, 2021

2021
[15]

Reexamination of local spin polarization beyond global equilibrium in relativistic heavy ion collisions.Phys

Cong Yi, Shi Pu, and Di-Lun Yang. Reexamination of local spin polarization beyond global equilibrium in relativistic heavy ion collisions.Phys. Rev. C, 104(6):064901, 2021

2021
[16]

Foundations and applications of quantum kinetic theory.Prog

Yoshimasa Hidaka, Shi Pu, Qun Wang, and Di-Lun Yang. Foundations and applications of quantum kinetic theory.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 127:103989, 2022

2022
[17]

Shear induced polarization: collisional contributions.JHEP, 12:030, 2022

Shu Lin and Ziyue Wang. Shear induced polarization: collisional contributions.JHEP, 12:030, 2022

2022
[18]

Steady state, displacement current, and spin polarization for massless fermion in a shear flow.Phys

Shu Lin and Ziyue Wang. Steady state, displacement current, and spin polarization for massless fermion in a shear flow.Phys. Rev. D, 111(3):034032, 2025

2025
[19]

Spin polarization for massive fermion in a shear flow: Complete results at O(∂).Phys

Ziyue Wang and Shu Lin. Spin polarization for massive fermion in a shear flow: Complete results at O(∂).Phys. Rev. D, 111(5):056023, 2025

2025
[20]

Collisional corrections to spin polarization from quantum kinetic theory using Chapman-Enskog expansion.Phys

Shuo Fang and Shi Pu. Collisional corrections to spin polarization from quantum kinetic theory using Chapman-Enskog expansion.Phys. Rev. D, 111(3):034015, 2025

2025
[22]

Spin polarization and spin alignment from quantum kinetic theory with self-energy corrections.Phys

Shuo Fang, Shi Pu, and Di-Lun Yang. Spin polarization and spin alignment from quantum kinetic theory with self-energy corrections.Phys. Rev. D, 109(3):034034, 2024

2024
[23]

Bass, Ulrich Heinz, Tetsufumi Hirano, and Chun Shen

Huichao Song, Steffen A. Bass, Ulrich Heinz, Tetsufumi Hirano, and Chun Shen. 200 A GeV Au+Au collisions serve a nearly perfect quark-gluon liquid.Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:192301,
[24]

The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and super- gravity.Adv

Juan Martin Maldacena. The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and super- gravity.Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2:231–252, 1998

1998
[25]

Gubser, Juan Martin Maldacena, Hirosi Ooguri, and Yaron Oz

Ofer Aharony, Steven S. Gubser, Juan Martin Maldacena, Hirosi Ooguri, and Yaron Oz. Large N field theories, string theory and gravity.Phys. Rept., 323:183–386, 2000

2000
[26]

Anti de Sitter space and holography.Adv

Edward Witten. Anti de Sitter space and holography.Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2:253–291, 1998

1998
[27]

Theodoros Nakas and Konstantinos S. Rigatos. Fermions and baryons as open-string states from brane junctions.JHEP, 12:157, 2020

2020
[28]

Correlation function of flavored fermion in holographic QCD.Phys

Si-wen Li, Yi-peng Zhang, and Hao-qian Li. Correlation function of flavored fermion in holographic QCD.Phys. Rev. D, 109(8):086020, 2024

2024
[29]

Spinors and the AdS / CFT correspondence

Mans Henningson and Konstadinos Sfetsos. Spinors and the AdS / CFT correspondence. Phys. Lett. B, 431:63–68, 1998

1998
[30]

Wolfgang Mueck and K. S. Viswanathan. Conformal field theory correlators from classical field theory on anti-de Sitter space. 2. Vector and spinor fields.Phys. Rev. D, 58:106006, 1998

1998
[31]

Boundary terms in the AdS / CFT correspondence for spinor fields

Marc Henneaux. Boundary terms in the AdS / CFT correspondence for spinor fields. In International Meeting on Mathematical Methods in Modern Theoretical Physics (ISPM 98), pages 161–170, 9 1998

1998
[32]

Real-time response in AdS/CFT with application to spinors

Nabil Iqbal and Hong Liu. Real-time response in AdS/CFT with application to spinors. Fortsch. Phys., 57:367–384, 2009

2009
[33]

Nonlinear Fluid Dynamics from Gravity.JHEP, 02:045, 2008

Sayantani Bhattacharyya, Veronika E Hubeny, Shiraz Minwalla, and Mukund Rangamani. Nonlinear Fluid Dynamics from Gravity.JHEP, 02:045, 2008

2008
[34]

Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics

Michel Le Bellac.Thermal Field Theory. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 3 2011

2011
[35]

Aneesh V. Manohar. Large N QCD. InLes Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions, pages 1091–1169, 2 1998

1998
[36]

Holography and ARPES Sum-Rules.JHEP, 05:018, 2012

Umut Gursoy, Erik Plauschinn, Henk Stoof, and Stefan Vandoren. Holography and ARPES Sum-Rules.JHEP, 05:018, 2012. 28

2012
[2011]

109, 139904 (2012)]

[Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 109, 139904 (2012)]. 27

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Spin Polarized Quasi-particle in Off-equilibrium Medium

Shu Lin and Jiayuan Tian. Spin Polarized Quasi-particle in Off-equilibrium Medium. 10 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Globally polarized quark-gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions.Phys

Zuo-Tang Liang and Xin-Nian Wang. Globally polarized quark-gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:102301, 2005. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)]

work page 2006

[3] [2]

Spin alignment of vector mesons in non-central A+A collisions.Phys

Zuo-Tang Liang and Xin-Nian Wang. Spin alignment of vector mesons in non-central A+A collisions.Phys. Lett. B, 629:20–26, 2005

work page 2005

[4] [3]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. Global Λ hyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid.Nature, 548:62–65, 2017

2017

[5] [4]

Becattini, V

F. Becattini, V. Chandra, L. Del Zanna, and E. Grossi. Relativistic distribution function for particles with spin at local thermodynamical equilibrium.Annals Phys., 338:32–49, 2013

2013

[6] [5]

Polarization of massive fermions in a vortical fluid.Phys

Ren-hong Fang, Long-gang Pang, Qun Wang, and Xin-nian Wang. Polarization of massive fermions in a vortical fluid.Phys. Rev. C, 94(2):024904, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [6]

Global Λ polarization in heavy- ion collisions from a transport model.Phys

Hui Li, Long-Gang Pang, Qun Wang, and Xiao-Liang Xia. Global Λ polarization in heavy- ion collisions from a transport model.Phys. Rev. C, 96(5):054908, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [7]

Thermal vorticity and spin polariza- tion in heavy-ion collisions.Phys

De-Xian Wei, Wei-Tian Deng, and Xu-Guang Huang. Thermal vorticity and spin polariza- tion in heavy-ion collisions.Phys. Rev. C, 99(1):014905, 2019

work page 2019