Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 50 references

This paper derives the heavy-quark Boltzmann equation from the Kadanoff-Baym equation and argues that off-shell broadening and memory effects suppress heavy-quark interaction and emission rates, especially near the critical temperature.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:44 UTC pith:HV65DJ5I

load-bearing objection Credible KB-to-Boltzmann derivation, but the advertised quantum effects rest on an ungrounded m_g^2 term in Eq. (32); worth refereeing with a demand to fix that. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15618 v1 pith:HV65DJ5I submitted 2026-07-17 hep-ph nucl-th

Nonequilibrium approach to heavy-quark transport

Juhee Hong This is my paper
classification hep-ph nucl-th
keywords heavy-quark transportKadanoff-Baym equationquark-gluon plasmahard-thermal-loop resummationoff-shell effectsmemory effectsmedium-induced gluon emissionBoltzmann equation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that the nonequilibrium Kadanoff-Baym equation is a consistent starting point for heavy-quark transport in the quark-gluon plasma. It shows that when heavy quarks are treated as on-shell quasiparticles, the collision terms reduce exactly to the Boltzmann equation with elastic scattering and medium-induced gluon emission from a single scattering. Beyond that limit, with broadened spectral functions for plasma partons and a generalized Kadanoff-Baym ansatz, the same self-energies produce off-shell and memory effects: interaction rates and gluon emission rates are reduced, and relaxation slows with oscillations. The author argues these effects grow as temperature approaches T_c, so the semiclassical Boltzmann equation is only the high-temperature limit. If true, this gives a unified quantum route to heavy-quark kinetic theory and a way to include quantum corrections in heavy-flavor phenomenology.

Core claim

Under the quasiparticle approximation, the Kadanoff-Baym equation's collision terms collapse to exactly the Boltzmann collision operator for heavy-quark elastic scattering (from the one-loop HTL self-energy) and for medium-induced gluon emission from a single scattering (from the two-loop self-energy). Extending beyond on-shell particles, using Lorentzian spectral functions and a generalized Kadanoff-Baym ansatz, the paper finds that off-shell partons reduce both the elastic interaction rate and the gluon emission rate, and that memory effects (non-Markovian collision terms) slow and oscillate the relaxation of a heavy-quark excitation. Both effects grow as temperature decreases toward T_c,

What carries the argument

The Kadanoff-Baym equation in Wigner space, with one- and two-loop self-energies built from hard-thermal-loop (HTL) resummed gluon propagators. The self-energy carries all transport processes: its cut parts become the collision terms. For the numerical quantum effects, a generalized Kadanoff-Baym ansatz converts two-time Green's functions into single-time distributions, and parton spectral functions are taken as Lorentzian with thermal mass and damping width.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical claims about quantum effects rest on the assumed Lorentzian spectral functions (thermal mass m_g,q ≈ m_D and width γ ≈ 0.2 g^2 T) and on an inserted gluon thermal mass in the emission factor; near T_c the perturbative HTL input is itself uncertain.

What would settle it

Calculate the heavy-quark elastic and emission rates using spectral functions obtained self-consistently from the same HTL self-energy instead of the assumed Lorentzian form; if the rates are not suppressed relative to the on-shell case, the off-shell effect is not real. A more direct empirical check: measure heavy-flavor R_AA and v_2 in low-energy or peripheral collisions where the plasma spends time near T_c; if no additional suppression or slower relaxation is needed beyond Boltzmann fits, the memory-effect claim would be weakened.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Under the quasiparticle approximation, the Kadanoff-Baym collision term for elastic scattering becomes the standard Boltzmann loss and gain terms with the HTL Debye-screened t-channel matrix element.
  • The two-loop self-energy, in the semicollinear limit, yields the medium-induced single-scattering gluon emission term used in earlier Boltzmann treatments, confirming that framework as a quasiparticle limit.
  • When plasma partons have Lorentzian spectral functions with thermal mass and width, both the elastic interaction rate of a charm quark and its gluon emission rate are lower than with on-shell massless partons, with the largest reduction near T_c.
  • Memory effects produce a time-dependent interaction rate and non-exponential, oscillatory relaxation that is slower than the Markovian case, with stronger slowing at lower temperature.
  • The Boltzmann equation is recovered as the high-temperature, on-shell limit, delimiting where semiclassical heavy-quark transport is valid.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: compare heavy-flavor R_AA and v_2 across collision centralities or energies that sample different temperatures; if off-shell suppression is real, heavy quarks in cooler, near-T_c matter should lose less energy than Boltzmann models predict, potentially raising R_AA while maintaining v_2.
  • Because both collisional and radiative terms derive from self-energies, the momentum at which radiative energy loss overtakes collisional loss may shift downward when off-shell effects are included; this is not computed in the paper but follows from Eq. (32).
  • The single-scattering emission formula omits multiple-scattering coherence; at very high momenta a full quantum treatment would need to resum those scatterings, so the present result is most reliable at intermediate momenta.
  • The memory and off-shell effects are both tied to the assumed spectral function; a self-consistent computation of spectral functions from the Kadanoff-Baym self-energy would show whether the near-T_c enhancement of quantum effects is robust or an artifact of the Lorentzian ansatz.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a heavy-quark transport equation from the Kadanoff-Baym (KB) equation in the real-time formalism, evaluating the heavy-quark self-energy to one- and two-loop order in HTL-resummed perturbation theory (Secs. II–III). In the quasiparticle limit the collision terms are shown to reduce to a standard Boltzmann equation for elastic scattering plus medium-induced gluon emission from a single scattering, with the radiative piece identified with the earlier Boltzmann equation of Refs. [12,13] in Eq. (28). The remainder of the paper (Sec. IV) uses a generalized KB ansatz with Lorentzian spectral functions for thermal partons and a time-dependent interaction rate to estimate off-shell and memory effects, reporting lower interaction and emission rates and slower relaxation, with stronger suppression near T_c. The formal reduction is the paper's main content; the quantitative quantum-effect results depend on additional phenomenological modeling.

Significance. If the reduction in Sec. III is fully correct, the paper supplies a useful derivation of a previously phenomenological heavy-quark Boltzmann equation from nonequilibrium quantum field theory, explicitly isolating where the mass-shell approximation enters and connecting collisional and radiative kernels in one framework. It also makes an explicit consistency check against the author's earlier work (Eq. (28)), which is a strength. However, the numerical claims in Sec. IV are not consequences of the KB derivation; they are outputs of specific Lorentzian model inputs and an ad hoc regulator. Thus the paper's durable value is primarily in the formal derivation, and the numerical section should be reframed as a schematic sensitivity study unless the modeling choices are derived.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (32)] The central claim of Sec. IV—that off-shellness suppresses the radiative energy loss, especially near T_c—is controlled by the m_g^2 term in the denominator of Eq. (32). This term is not derived from the KB self-energy of Sec. III. In Eqs. (20)–(23) the only mass regulator is the heavy-quark mass m; the emitted-gluon propagator in Eq. (20) contains no m_g^2. Inserting m_g^2 into Eq. (32) is an ad hoc regulator, and because it suppresses low-k_T emission it directly produces the reduction in Fig. 4(b) and its temperature dependence. The paper should either derive this term from the HTL-resummed gluon propagator or clearly label it as a phenomenological model parameter and soften the claim that the suppression is a prediction of the KB framework.
  2. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (30)] The Lorentzian spectral functions in Eq. (30) are not obtained from the HTL self-energies of Sec. III. HTL gluon spectral functions are not Lorentzian, and near T_c with a running coupling the width is not parametrically small. The text acknowledges sensitivity to m_{g,q} and gamma, but the off-shell vs on-shell comparison is still presented as a physical result. At minimum, the paper should test a second spectral shape or a different gamma normalization and report whether the near-T_c suppression and the sign of the effect are robust.
  3. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (21)–(22)] The reduction from the nine two-loop diagrams to Eq. (21) and then to Eq. (22) is not shown. The appendix gives the starting expressions, but the cancellations and the eikonal approximations are not verifiable from the text. In particular, the approximation k_T >> q_T used to obtain Eq. (22) fails near the IR region where q_T is of order k_T, which is the region that dominates the rate at small k_T. Please present the full reduction or justify the approximation quantitatively.
  4. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (36)] The memory-effect analysis linearizes the KB equation by replacing non-equilibrium distributions in self-energies by f_eq and uses only the one-loop rate Gamma(t) in Eq. (37). It therefore does not incorporate the two-loop radiative kernels that are the paper's main formal result. The memory effects are a standard non-Markovian one-loop calculation applied to heavy quarks; the conclusion about slower relaxation is not connected to the inelastic sector. A version of Eq. (36) with the radiative collision terms would be needed to support the paper's broader claim about quantum effects on heavy-quark transport.
  5. [Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The quasiparticle approximation with a delta-function spectral density is already imposed in Eq. (5) and Eq. (7). This is appropriate for deriving the Boltzmann limit, but it means the off-shell study in Sec. IV does not extend that formal derivation; it replaces the spectral function at a later stage with an equally ad hoc Lorentzian. The paper should state explicitly that the KB-to-Boltzmann reduction and the off-shell computation are separate approximation schemes, not one controlled hierarchy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The symbol m is used for the heavy-quark mass, for the off-shell parton mass m_{g,q}, and in Eq. (32) for the emitted-gluon mass; please disambiguate (e.g., m_Q, m_th).
  2. [Sec. III B, Eq. (24)] The Gunion-Bertsch-type amplitude relation |M_a+M_b+M_c|^2 = 4g^2 C_A q_T^2/(k_T^2+m^2 x^2)^2 |M|^2 is stated without derivation or normalization details; specify the phase-space conventions.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 4] Provide the numerical inputs: charm mass, running-coupling scale, values of m_{g,q} and gamma, and integration cutoffs. Without these the curves are not reproducible.
  4. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (37)] State how the soft momentum and frequency integrals are regulated, and clarify why Gamma(t) vanishes as t→0.
  5. [Sec. V and intro] The summary repeats the abstract nearly verbatim; also 'strongly correlated QCD matter' is used loosely for a regime where the paper's perturbative HTL self-energies are not controlled.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial self-citation circularity: the radiative Boltzmann term is imported from the author's own prior work via Eq. (27)-(28), though the KB derivation itself is independent.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III B, Eqs. (27)-(28)]
    "Using the gluon emission rate given by [12] ... the loss term can be cast into [43] ... This is the radiation term appearing in the Boltzmann equation of Refs. [12, 13]."

    The radiative collision term that completes the claimed reduction to the Boltzmann equation is explicitly taken from the author's own Refs. [12,13]. Eq. (27) is stated as 'given by [12]', and Eq. (28) is then identified with the radiation term of those self-cited papers. The equality between the self-energy-derived expression Eq. (23) and the cited Eq. (27) is asserted by citation rather than demonstrated here, so the radiative half of the central claim reduces to the author's prior Boltzmann result by construction. The elastic part and the KB formalism are independent, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The KB-to-Boltzmann reduction for elastic scattering is a genuine derivation from HTL-resummed self-energies and phase-space manipulations. The radiative channel, however, contains a self-citation gap: the final loss term Eq. (28) is identified with the author's earlier Boltzmann radiation term, with Eq. (27) taken from [12]; the connection to the derived self-energy expression Eq. (23) is not shown. This is partial self-citation circularity, scored 4 rather than higher, because the KB derivation is not constructed from the Boltzmann result and the paper openly labels the identification. The off-shell suppression and memory effects are not circular in the formal sense: they follow from assumed Lorentzian spectral functions Eq. (30) and the GKBA Eq. (34), which are external inputs/approximations. The ad hoc m_g^2 inserted in Eq. (32) is a modeling choice that affects correctness, not a reduction to inputs; the paper itself notes sensitivity to those parameters. No fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-import, or ansatz-via-self-citation pattern is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The quantitative central claims rest on four model parameters and several approximations, especially the Lorentzian off-shell spectral function and the GKBA memory ansatz.

free parameters (4)
  • thermal parton mass m_{g,q} = ~ m_D
    Assumed in the Lorentzian spectral function Eq. (30) and in the emission denominator Eq. (32); controls off-shell suppression.
  • damping width gamma = 0.2 g^2 T
    Assumed Lorentzian width from Refs. [44,45]; drives the off-shell rate reduction in Fig. 4.
  • running coupling alpha_s(2 pi T) = not specified
    Used for temperature dependence of all numerical results; no explicit formula or reference given in the text.
  • m_g regulator in emission factor = m_g
    Inserted ad hoc in Eq. (32) to suppress the emission phase space; not derived from the Kadanoff-Baym self-energy.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption HTL resummation for soft gluons
    Self-energy loops use HTL-resummed propagators for Q ~ gT (Sec. III); standard pQCD at high T, but untrustworthy near T_c.
  • domain assumption Quasiparticle on-shell heavy-quark spectral functions
    Eqs. (7)-(8) replace the heavy-quark spectral density by delta functions when reducing the KB equation to Boltzmann.
  • domain assumption Semicollinear approximation and single-scattering dominance
    Footnote 3 assumes formation time shorter than mean free path; excludes multiple-scattering/LPM resummation.
  • ad hoc to paper Generalized Kadanoff-Baym ansatz
    Eqs. (34)-(35) assume free-field-like phase factors and distribution at the earlier time; this is the memory-effect model and is uncontrolled in the strongly coupled regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Lorentzian spectral function for off-shell partons
    Eq. (30), with m_{g,q} ~ m_D and gamma ~ 0.2 g^2 T, is assumed rather than derived in this paper; it determines the off-shell reduction in Fig. 4.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12542 in / 15974 out tokens · 147225 ms · 2026-08-01T22:44:40.589306+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A nonequilibrium Green's function approach to heavy-quark transport is discussed within the framework of the Kadanoff-Baym equation. One- and two-loop self-energy diagrams with hard-thermal-loop resummed propagators are calculated in the real-time formalism. Under the quasiparticle approximation, the kinetic equation reduces to the Boltzmann equation that accounts for elastic scattering and medium-induced gluon emission from a single scattering. Numerical studies suggest that off-shell and memory effects in quark-gluon plasmas influence heavy-quark dynamics, particularly near the critical temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15618 by Juhee Hong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The heavy-quark self-energy at leading order. The black dot denotes the HTL resummed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The self-energy diagrams for medium-induced gluon emission from a single scattering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Medium-induced gluon emission from a single scattering. The crosses denote thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The interaction rate of charm quark at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The time-dependent interaction rate of charm quark at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Quark- and gluon-loop contributions in the leading-order self-energy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339-376 (2018) [arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas and R. Venugopalan, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, no.3, 035003 (2021) [arXiv:2005.12299 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Berrehrah, E

    H. Berrehrah, E. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, P. B. Gossiaux, J. Aichelin and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C89, no.5, 054901 (2014) [arXiv:1308.5148 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Berrehrah, P

    H. Berrehrah, P. B. Gossiaux, J. Aichelin, W. Cassing and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C90, no.6, 064906 (2014) [arXiv:1405.3243 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    S. Y. F. Liu, M. He and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C99, no.5, 055201 (2019) [arXiv:1806.05669 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    S. Y. F. Liu and R. Rapp, JHEP08, 168 (2020) [arXiv:2003.12536 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    M. L. Sambataro, S. Plumari and V. Greco, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.12, 1140 (2020) [arXiv:2005.14470 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    J. M. Torres-Rincon, G. Monta˜ na, `A. Ramos and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. C105, no.2, 025203 (2022) [arXiv:2106.01156 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Ruggieri, Pooja, J

    M. Ruggieri, Pooja, J. Prakash and S. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D106, no.3, 034032 (2022) [arXiv:2203.06712 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Pooja, S. K. Das, V. Greco and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 054026 (2023) [arXiv:2306.13749 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Grishmanovskii, T

    I. Grishmanovskii, T. Song, C. Greiner and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. D112, no.1, 014042 (2025) [arXiv:2503.22311 [hep-ph]]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Hong, Phys

    J. Hong, Phys. Rev. C109, no.2, 024913 (2024) [arXiv:2308.14530 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Hong, Phys

    J. Hong, Phys. Rev. C111, no.4, 044910 (2025) [arXiv:2501.01600 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Quantum Statistical Mechanics,

    L. P. Kadanoff and G. Baym, “Quantum Statistical Mechanics,” Benjamin, New York, 1962

    1962

  15. [15]

    Danielewicz, Annals Phys.152, 239-304 (1984)

    P. Danielewicz, Annals Phys.152, 239-304 (1984)

    1984

  16. [16]

    K. c. Chou, Z. b. Su, B. l. Hao and L. Yu, Phys. Rept.118, 1-131 (1985)

    1985

  17. [17]

    N. P. Landsman and C. G. van Weert, Phys. Rept.145, 141 (1987)

    1987

  18. [18]

    Mrowczynski and U

    S. Mrowczynski and U. W. Heinz, Annals Phys.229, 1-54 (1994)

    1994

  19. [19]

    Greiner and S

    C. Greiner and S. Leupold, Annals Phys.270, 328-390 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9802312 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  20. [20]

    J. P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rept.359, 355-528 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0101103 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  21. [21]

    Cassing, Eur

    W. Cassing, Eur. Phys. J. ST168, 3-87 (2009) [arXiv:0808.0715 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  22. [22]

    X. L. Sheng, N. Weickgenannt, E. Speranza, D. H. Rischke and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D104, no.1, 016029 (2021) [arXiv:2103.10636 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    J. S. Schwinger, J. Math. Phys.2, 407-432 (1961)

    1961

  24. [24]

    L. V. Keldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP20, 1018-1026 (1965)

    1965

  25. [25]

    Braaten and M

    E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D44, 1298 (1991)

    1991

  26. [26]

    Braaten and M

    E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D44, R2625 (1991)

    1991

  27. [27]

    Thermal Field Theory,

    M. L. Bellac, “Thermal Field Theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  28. [28]

    Braaten and R

    E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. B337, 569-634 (1990)

    1990

  29. [29]

    H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D28, 2007 (1983)

    2007

  30. [30]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP11, 001 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0010177 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  31. [31]

    G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C71, 064904 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0412346 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz.92, 535-536 (1953)

    1953

  33. [33]

    A. B. Migdal, Phys. Rev.103, 1811-1820 (1956)

    1956

  34. [34]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP11, 057 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0109064 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP06, 030 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204343 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  36. [36]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP01, 030 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0209353 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    Djordjevic and U

    M. Djordjevic and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C77, 024905 (2008) [arXiv:0705.3439 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    Djordjevic, Phys

    M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C80, 064909 (2009) [arXiv:0903.4591 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    Ghiglieri, J

    J. Ghiglieri, J. Hong, A. Kurkela, E. Lu, G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, JHEP05, 010 (2013) [arXiv:1302.5970 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Ghiglieri, G

    J. Ghiglieri, G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, JHEP03, 095 (2016) [arXiv:1509.07773 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Ghiglieri and E

    J. Ghiglieri and E. Weitz, JHEP11, 068 (2022) [arXiv:2207.08842 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    J. F. Gunion and G. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. D25, 746 (1982)

    1982

  43. [43]

    Jeon and G

    S. Jeon and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C71, 034901 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0309332 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  44. [44]

    Braaten and R

    E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D42, 2156-2160 (1990)

    1990

  45. [45]

    Braaten and R

    E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D46, 1829-1834 (1992)

    1992

  46. [46]

    Juchem, W

    S. Juchem, W. Cassing and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. D69, 025006 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0307353 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  47. [47]

    Lipavsky, V

    P. Lipavsky, V. Spicka and B. Velicky, Phys. Rev. B34, 6933-6942 (1986)

    1986

  48. [48]

    Greiner, K

    C. Greiner, K. Wagner and P. G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. C49, 1693-1701 (1994)

    1994

  49. [49]

    Ikeda, Phys

    T. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. D69, 105018 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0401045 [hep-ph]]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  50. [50]

    R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D47, 5589-5600 (1993). 17

    1993