Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 43 references

Bottomonium production in an open quantum system approach with interactions from lattice quantum chromodynamic

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum regeneration boosts bottomonium yields up to 16-fold in heavy-ion collisions

desk verdict Letter re: arXiv:2607.06191 read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06191 v1 pith:T2N6Z7UJ submitted 2026-07-07 nucl-th

Shuhan Zheng , Shuzhe Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords quantumpotentiallatticeregenerationupsilonbottomoniumcollapseimaginary
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 studies how bottomonium bound states (Υ particles, made from a bottom quark and its antimatter partner) are produced and destroyed in the superhot quark-gluon plasma created in lead-lead collisions at the LHC. The standard approach treats the quark-antiquark pair as evolving under a complex-valued potential extracted from lattice QCD simulations, but this only captures one-directional dissociation: singlet states fall apart into color-octet states, and the reverse process—recombination of octet pieces back into observable singlet bound states—is absent. The authors argue that this reverse process, called quantum regeneration, is not optional. They implement it using an open quantum system framework where the quark-antiquark pair evolves via a Lindblad master equation, and they match the collapse operators governing singlet-octet transitions directly to the imaginary part of the lattice-QCD-derived in-medium potential. The key operator identity is that the collapse operator squared equals twice the imaginary potential. Using two different lattice-QCD-constrained potential parametrizations, they compute nuclear modification factors for Υ(1S), Υ(2S), and Υ(3S) and find that regeneration can enhance yields by factors of 1.8 to 16 for the ground state and by roughly an order of magnitude for excited states, relative to calculations that omit the reverse transition. The magnitude of the effect tracks the strength of the imaginary potential: the parametrization with the larger imaginary part produces stronger regeneration. However, even with regeneration included, the calculated yields do not yet reach full quantitative agreement with experimental data from ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS.

What carries the argument

Lindblad master equation with collapse operators â = √(2V_I(r;T)) matched to lattice QCD imaginary potential; color-singlet/color-octet density matrix blocks; pNRQCD effective field theory; two lattice-QCD-constrained potential parametrizations (HotQCD and Burnier–Kaczmarek–Rothkopf); (2+1)D viscous hydrodynamics for the QGP background

What would settle it

If the imaginary part of the lattice QCD potential does not faithfully represent the singlet-to-octet transition rate for dynamical heavy quarks with finite mass and momentum—for instance due to non-Markovian effects, velocity corrections, or non-uniqueness of spectral function reconstruction—then the collapse operator and hence the entire regeneration mechanism would be mis-calibrated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that octet-to-singlet quantum regeneration, implemented through collapse operators matched to the lattice QCD imaginary potential via the identity â†â = 2V_I(r;T), substantially enhances bottomonium survival in the quark-gluon plasma. For the HotQCD potential parametrization, regeneration enhances Υ(1S) yields by a factor of 1.8 to 16 relative to a Schrödinger-equation treatment without feedback, and enhances excited-state yields by approximately one order of magnitude, making regeneration the dominant production mechanism for excited bottomonia. The enhancement is potential-dependent: a parametrization with a smaller imaginary part (Burnier–Kaczmarek–Rothkopf) yields

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the operator identity â†â = 2V_I(r;T), which equates the collapse operator governing singlet-to-octet transitions with the imaginary part of the static in-medium potential from lattice QCD. This matching is derived by comparing the Lindblad equation's singlet sector, with all octet feedback turned off, against the Schrödinger equation with a complex potential. It assumes that the imaginary potential extracted from the spectral function of a static,

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any future calculation of bottomonium production in heavy-ion collisions that omits octet-to-singlet regeneration will systematically underestimate yields, especially for excited states.
  • The sensitivity of results to the initial singlet-versus-octet ratio in the density matrix motivates a first-principles perturbative QCD calculation of the initial color composition of bottom quark pairs.
  • The potential-dependence of regeneration strength suggests that improved lattice QCD extractions of the imaginary potential, particularly at temperatures relevant to bottomonium dissociation, will directly sharpen predictions for LHC observables.
  • The emergence of sequential suppression only when regeneration is included, for the Burnier–Kaczmarek–Rothkopf potential, indicates that the pattern of Υ(2S)/Υ(3S) suppression relative to Υ(1S) is a joint probe of the imaginary potential and the regeneration mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the operator identity â†â = 2V_I is tested against non-static configurations—for example, by computing the collapse operator from dynamical quark-antiquark spectral functions rather than static ones—one could directly assess whether velocity-dependent corrections change the regeneration rate. This would be a clean falsifier of the matching procedure.
  • The paper's finding that the system equilibrates to a singlet-to-octet ratio near the naive 1:8 color degeneracy, but with orbital angular momentum ratios deviating from pure degeneracy, suggests that the effective temperature of the quarkonium subsystem may differ from the bath temperature. Measuring this deviation could serve as a thermometer for the late-stage QGP.
  • If a third lattice-QCD potential parametrization with an intermediate imaginary part were available, the regeneration enhancement would likely scale interpolatively between the two cases studied, providing a parametric curve that could be tested against the centrality and pT dependence of R_AA data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies bottomonium production in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 5.02 TeV using a Lindblad master equation derived from pNRQCD. The key methodological contribution is matching the collapse operator governing singlet-octet transitions to the lattice QCD imaginary potential via the operator identity a†a = 2V_I(r;T) (Eq. 7), enabling the use of nonperturbative lattice inputs within the open quantum system framework. Two lattice-QCD-constrained potentials (HotQCD and Burnier-Kaczmarek-Rothkopf) are employed, and nuclear modification factors are computed for Upsilon(1S), (2S), and (3S). The authors find that octet-to-singlet quantum regeneration substantially enhances bottomonium yields—by factors of 1.8 to 16 for Upsilon(1S) with the HotQCD potential—relative to Schrodinger-equation-based treatments lacking regeneration. The paper is transparent about not achieving full quantitative agreement with experimental data.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-motivated problem: the tension between lattice-QCD-based potentials and experimental bottomonium R_AA observed in Schrodinger-equation studies, and whether octet-to-singlet regeneration within a full open quantum system treatment can resolve it. The operator-level matching between the Lindblad collapse operator and the lattice imaginary potential is a reasonable and novel step toward incorporating nonperturbative inputs into the OQS framework. The use of two independently extracted lattice potentials provides a useful systematic comparison. The regeneration enhancement factors (1.8–16) are quantitatively striking and constitute a falsifiable, physically interpretable result. The numerical implementation (Taylor series integrator preserving Hermiticity and trace, basis truncation at N_max=20, l_max=2) appears competent. The framework is not circular: the collapse operator is derived from lattice QCD inputs and the R_AA predictions are compared against independent experimental data.

major comments (1)
  1. Eq. (7) and the operator choice a = sqrt(2V_I(r;T)): The matching condition a†a = 2V_I constrains only the product a†a, not the operator a itself. The authors choose a real, radially diagonal operator, which preserves orbital angular momentum (l, m) during singlet-octet transitions (confirmed in footnote 1). However, in the pNRQCD framework from which the Lindblad equation is derived (Refs. [19, 22, 24]), the singlet-to-octet transition at leading order is mediated by dipole operators proportional to r_i, which change l by ±1. At leading order in pNRQCD where V_I ∝ κr², the choice sqrt(V_I) ∝ r coincides with the dipole structure. But the lattice QCD V_I has non-quadratic r-dependence (Eq. A.3: V_I/T = (rT)^1.2 + 0.54(rT)), so sqrt(V_I) is no longer linear in r, and the paper's a is not a dipole operator. This matters quantitatively: with the paper's choice, Upsilon(1S) (l=0) regenerates
minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract: the statement that 'dipole transitions in the collapse operators are found to significantly redistribute populations among different orbital angular momentum channels' could be misread as implying the collapse operator a has dipole structure. Given that a preserves l (footnote 1), the redistribution is driven by C^1_i, not a. A brief clarification would avoid confusion.
  2. Sec. 2, Eq. (3): the value κ̃ = 4.0 is stated without units or a reference. Stating the units (GeV²/fm³ or equivalent) and the origin would be helpful.
  3. Sec. 2: the choice V_o = -V_g/8 (octet potential with vanishing confinement term) is stated with a brief argument. A short justification or reference for why the confinement term should vanish in the octet channel would strengthen this point.
  4. Sec. 3: the switching temperature T_d = 0.16 GeV is stated without discussion of sensitivity. A sentence on how R_AA changes with T_d, or a reference to where this choice was validated, would be useful.
  5. Fig. 1 caption: the label 'Phys. Rev. D 105 054513' appears in the figure and is identified as the BKR potential [15] in the text, but the caption does not state this. Adding 'BKR potential [15]' in the caption would improve readability.
  6. Appendix A, Eq. (A.7): the Meijer G-function notation is compact but difficult to parse. A brief note on its numerical evaluation, or a reference to a standard implementation, would aid readability.
  7. Sec. 3, Figs. 2–3: the legend labels 'f_oo = 0' and 'f_oo ≠ 0' are somewhat ambiguous. Clarifying these as 'singlet-only initial condition' and 'pQCD-motivated initial condition' (or similar) in the legend, or adding a parenthetical in the caption, would help the reader distinguish them from the 'Sch.' (without regeneration) curves.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The main substantive concern is that our collapse operator a = sqrt(2 V_I), being radially diagonal, does not reproduce the dipole (r_i) structure of the pNRQCD singlet-octet transition operator when V_I is not quadratic in r. We agree this is a genuine limitation of the current matching scheme and will revise the manuscript to state it explicitly. We also explain why the present choice is a controlled and physically motivated approximation, and why the core results of the paper stand.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Eq. (7) and the operator choice a = sqrt(2V_I(r;T)): The matching condition a†a = 2V_I constrains only the product a†a, not the operator a itself. The authors choose a real, radially diagonal operator, which preserves orbital angular momentum (l, m) during singlet-octet transitions (confirmed in footnote 1). However, in the pNRQCD framework from which the Lindblad equation is derived (Refs. [19, 22, 24]), the singlet-to-octet transition at leading order is mediated by dipole operators proportional to r_i, which change l by ±1. At leading order in pNRQCD where V_I ∝ κr², the choice sqrt(V_I) ∝ r coincides with the dipole structure. But the lattice QCD V_I has non-quadratic r-dependence (Eq. A.3: V_I/T = (rT)^1.2 + 0.54(rT)), so sqrt(V_I) is no longer linear in r, and the paper's a is not a dipole operator. This matters quantitatively: with the paper's choice, Upsilon(1S) (l=0) regenerates

    Authors: We thank the referee for this incisive and important observation, which identifies a genuine structural limitation of the matching scheme in the current manuscript. We agree with the core of the comment and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Below we (1) acknowledge the limitation, (2) explain the physical and theoretical motivation for the present choice, and (3) discuss why the central results of the paper are not invalidated. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Continuation of the above comment, regarding the quantitative impact of the operator choice on regeneration rates and angular momentum redistribution.]

    Authors: (1) Acknowledgment. The referee is correct that the operator identity a†a = 2 V_I(r;T) constrains only the product a†a and does not uniquely fix the operator a. In the pNRQCD derivation of the Lindblad equation (Refs. [19, 22, 24]), the singlet-octet transition operator at leading order is a dipole proportional to r_i, which changes l by ±1. When V_I ∝ κ r² (as in leading-order perturbative pNRQCD), our choice a = sqrt(2 V_I) ∝ r is consistent with this dipole structure. However, as the referee correctly points out, the lattice-QCD-extracted V_I has non-quadratic r-dependence (e.g., Eq. A.3), so sqrt(V_I) is no longer linear in r, and our radially diagonal a does not carry the dipole selection rules. This means that our current implementation does not properly capture l-changing transitions in the singlet-octet sector. We will add an explicit discussion of this point in the revised manuscript, including a clear statement that the operator choice is not unique and that the dipole structure is lost when non-quadratic V_I is used. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Further continuation regarding the physical implications and whether the paper's conclusions are affected.]

    Authors: (2) Motivation for the present choice. The matching a†a = 2 V_I was adopted as a pragmatic bridge between two frameworks: the pNRQCD Lindblad equation (which requires a collapse operator) and the lattice-QCD imaginary potential (which provides V_I but not the operator structure). The lattice imaginary potential is extracted from spectral functions of static Wilson-line correlators and encodes the thermal width of a color-singlet b-bbar pair, but it does not directly provide the transition operator a. Our choice ensures that the singlet-sector decay rate—i.e., the diagonal dissipative term a†a/2 in the Lindblad equation—exactly reproduces the lattice-QCD imaginary potential for any singlet state, regardless of its radial wavefunction. This is the primary quantity that the Schrödinger-equation-based studies (Refs. [14, 17]) have been comparing against, and our matching guarantees consistency with those results in the no-regeneration limit (as verified numerically and noted in footnote 2). The cost, as the referee identifies, is that the off-diagonal (l-changing) transition structure is not correctly captured. revision: partial

  4. Referee: [Final part of the comment, regarding whether the paper's main conclusions survive the operator-choice issue.]

    Authors: (3) Impact on conclusions. The referee's concern is primarily about the quantitative redistribution among angular momentum channels and the regeneration rates. We note the following: (a) The paper already observes significant OAM redistribution (Fig. 1 and the discussion of 1:2.5:3.3 ratios), driven by the octet-to-octet diffusion operator C^1_i, which does carry the correct dipole structure (Eq. 3). The singlet-octet transition operator a contributes to OAM redistribution as well, but the referee is correct that its contribution is structurally incomplete. (b) The regeneration enhancement factors (1.8–16 for Upsilon(1S)) are driven primarily by the overall magnitude of V_I (which controls the total singlet-octet transition rate) rather than by the detailed OAM structure. The total rate out of the singlet sector is fixed by a†a = 2 V_I regardless of the operator choice, so the enhancement relative to the no-regeneration (Schrödinger) case is robust to this issue. What is sensitive to the operator choice is the distribution of regenerated population among different n and l states, which affects the relative R_AA of 1S vs. 2S vs. 3S. (c) The paper is transparent that full quantitative agreement with LHC data is not achieved. The operator-choice issue is one of several systematic uncertainties (alongside initial conditions, feed-down, and potential parametrization) that contribute to this gap. We will add a discussion of this as a systematic uncertainty in the revised manuscript. In summary: we agree with the referee that the operator choice a = sqrt(2 V_I) does not reproduce the dipole structure when V_I is non-quadratic, and we will state this explicitly. A fully consistent treatment would require constructing a dipole-structured operator whose product a†a reproduces 2 V revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the collapse operator is matched to an external lattice QCD input, and R_AA predictions are compared against independent experimental data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The key operator identity in Eq. (7), â†â = 2V_I(r;T), is obtained by matching the singlet-sector Lindblad equation (Eq. 6) to the Schrödinger equation (Eq. 5) with the imaginary potential V_I taken as an external input from independent lattice QCD calculations (Refs. [15, 16]). The lattice potentials are not fitted to the target observables (R_AA); they are constrained by independent lattice data. The R_AA predictions are then compared against experimental data from ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS. The initial density matrix (Eq. 8) uses primordial cross sections and color fractions from pQCD (Refs. [35, 36]), not from the R_AA data being predicted. The self-citation to Ref. [17] (Zheng, Chen, Du, Shi) provides the hydrodynamic and initial-condition setup but is not load-bearing for the central claim about regeneration—it is a methodological reference, not a premise that assumes the conclusion. The choice â = √(2V_I) is a modeling assumption (noted by the skeptic as potentially problematic for the dipole structure), but it is an assumption about operator structure, not a circular definition where the output is defined in terms of the input. The regeneration enhancement factors (1.8–16) are emergent results of the Lindblad evolution, not fitted quantities. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. All physical objects (singlet/octet states, collapse operators, lattice potentials) are standard in the pNRQCD and OQS quarkonium literature. The free parameters are inherited from prior lattice QCD fits and pNRQCD calculations, not fitted to the R_AA observables in this paper. The main modeling assumptions are the Markovian approximation, the operator matching identity (Eq. 7), and the octet potential form.

free parameters (8)
  • κ̃ (heavy-quark momentum diffusion coefficient) = 4.0
    Used in the collapse operator C^1_i (Eq. 3) for octet diffusion. Taken from NLO pNRQCD calculations, not fitted to the R_AA data in this paper.
  • f_ss (singlet fraction in initial density matrix) = 2/7 or 1
    Two scenarios are explored: pQCD-motivated (2/7) and singlet-only (1). These are model choices, not fitted values, but they significantly affect the output.
  • σ_lQCD (string tension, HotQCD potential) = 0.22 GeV^2
    Fitted to lattice QCD data in prior work [14], not refitted here.
  • α_lQCD (Coulomb coupling, HotQCD potential) = 0.3805
    Fitted to lattice QCD data in prior work [14].
  • σ (string tension, BKR potential) = 0.2 GeV^2
    Vacuum string tension used in the HTL-inspired model parametrization.
  • α̃_s (strong coupling, BKR potential) = 0.4105
    Used in the HTL-inspired model parametrization fitted to lattice data [15,31].
  • T_d (switching temperature) = 0.16 GeV
    Temperature below which in-medium evolution stops and vacuum evolution begins. A modeling choice.
  • Debye mass m_D(T) interpolation coefficients = c1=1.275, α1=170.8, β1=19.41, c2=7.593, c3=0.6724, α2=9.535e4, β2=1.262e4, γ=0.12, c4=7.864, c5=2.497
    Piecewise interpolation coefficients for the Debye mass in the BKR potential parametrization, fitted to lattice data in prior work [31].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Markovian approximation: the b-b̄ pair evolves under a memoryless Lindblad equation.
    Stated in Section 2: 'Under the Markovian approximation, the density matrix ρ(t) of the b-b̄ pair evolves according to a Lindblad master equation.' This is standard in the field but unproven for the specific system.
  • domain assumption The operator identity â†â = 2V_I(r;T) (Eq. 7) correctly maps the lattice imaginary potential to the collapse operator.
    Derived by matching Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) in the limit ρ_so=ρ_os=ρ_oo=0. The extension to the full evolution where these blocks are non-zero is assumed but not rigorously justified.
  • domain assumption The color-octet potential is V_o = -V_g/8, with the confinement term vanishing for octet states.
    Stated in Section 2: 'we argue that the confinement term should vanish. Thus, we take the octet potential V^o = -V^g/8.' This is a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The b-b̄ pair can be treated as a dilute system, ignoring interactions with other heavy quark pairs.
    Section 2: 'the b and b̄ quarks are dilute, and we may focus on a pair of b-b̄ quarks as the system of interest.' Justified by σ_bb̄/σ_inel ≈ 10^-3.
  • domain assumption The basis of vacuum Cornell eigenstates is sufficient for representing the in-medium density matrix.
    Section 2: 'We perform the evolution in the basis of vacuum Cornell eigenstates.' Truncated at N_max=20, l_max=2. Convergence is not explicitly demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bottomonium production in an open quantum system approach with interactions from lattice quantum chromodynamic." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2N6Z7UJ

@misc{pith2026260706191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bottomonium production in an open quantum system approach with interactions from lattice quantum chromodynamic},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2N6Z7UJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06191}
}
abstract

Bottomonium production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV is studied using a Lindblad master equation derived from potential non-relativistic quantum chromodynamics (QCD), where quantum regeneration of color-singlet states is matched to the lattice QCD imaginary potential via collapse operators. Two parametrizations of the in-medium heavy-quark potential, both constrained by lattice QCD data, are employed to compute the nuclear modification factors of $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$, and $\Upsilon(3S)$. The results show sensitivities to both the quantum regeneration effect and the initial condition of the density matrix. The dipole transitions in the collapse operators are found to significantly redistribute populations among different orbital angular momentum channels. It is shown that regeneration is more important when a potential with a larger imaginary part, i.e., stronger transitions between singlet and octet states, is used.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06191 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Time evolution of the diagonal density matrix ele [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Same as Fig. 2 but for the Burnier–Kaczmarek– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Matsui, H

    T. Matsui, H. Satz,J/ψSuppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation, Phys. Lett. B 178 (1986) 416–422. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8 1986

  2. [2]

    Blaizot, J.-Y

    J.-P. Blaizot, J.-Y . Ollitrault, J/psi suppression in Pb Pb collisions: A Hint of quark - gluon plasma produc- tion?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1703–1706. arXiv:hep- ph/9606289, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1703

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.1703 1996

  3. [3]

    J/psi transport in QGP and Pt distribution at SPS and RHIC

    X.-l. Zhu, P.-f. Zhuang, N. Xu, J/psi transport in QGP and p(t) distribution at SPS and RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 607 (2005) 107–114. arXiv:nucl-th/0411093, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.12.023

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.12.023 2005

  4. [4]

    L. Yan, P. Zhuang, N. Xu, Competition between J/ psi suppression and regeneration in quark-gluon plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 232301. arXiv:nucl- th/0608010, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.232301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.232301 2006

  5. [5]

    E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, H. Stoecker, N. Xu, Collective flow of open and hidden charm in Au +Au collisions at s**(1/2)=200-GeV, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 044901. arXiv:nucl-th/0409047, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.71.044901

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.71.044901 2005

  6. [6]

    Braun-Munzinger, J

    P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, (Non)thermal aspects of charmonium production and a new look at J/psi sup- pression, Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000) 196–202. arXiv:nucl- th/0007059, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00991-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)00991-6 2000

  7. [7]

    In-Medium Effects on Charmonium Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions

    L. Grandchamp, R. Rapp, G. E. Brown, In medium effects on charmonium production in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 212301. arXiv:hep-ph/0306077, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.212301

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.212301 2004

  8. [8]

    Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton-proton to heavy-ion collisions

    A. Andronic, et al., Heavy-flavour and quarkonium pro- duction in the LHC era: from proton–proton to heavy- ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (3) (2016) 107. arXiv:1506.03981, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3819-5

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3819-5 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, A. Vairo, Ef- fective Field Theories for Heavy Quarkonium, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 (2005) 1423. arXiv:hep-ph/0410047, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1423

    2005 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Islam, M

    A. Islam, M. Strickland, Bottomonium suppression and elliptic flow from real-time quantum evolution, Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135949. arXiv:2007.10211, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135949

    2020 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Islam, M

    A. Islam, M. Strickland, Bottomonium suppression and elliptic flow using Heavy Quarkonium Quantum Dy- namics, JHEP 21 (2020) 235. arXiv:2010.05457, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)235

    2020 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    L. Wen, B. Chen, Bottomonium sequential suppression and strong heavy-quark potential in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137774. arXiv:2208.10050, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137774

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    L. Wen, X. Du, S. Shi, B. Chen, Investigating color screening in proton-nucleus collisions with complex potentials*, Chin. Phys. C 46 (11) (2022) 114102. arXiv:2205.07520, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac7fe6

    2022 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    G. Chen, B. Chen, J. Zhao, Bottomonium evolution with in-medium heavy quark potential from lattice QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (8) (2024) 869. arXiv:2402.11316, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13266-8

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Burnier, O

    Y . Burnier, O. Kaczmarek, A. Rothkopf, Quarko- nium at finite temperature: Towards realistic phe- nomenology from first principles, JHEP 12 (2015) 101. arXiv:1509.07366, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)101

    2015 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    D. Bala, O. Kaczmarek, R. Larsen, S. Mukherjee, G. Parkar, P. Petreczky, A. Rothkopf, J. H. Weber, Static quark-antiquark interactions at nonzero temperature from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 105 (5) (2022) 054513. arXiv:2110.11659, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.054513

    2022 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zheng, B

    S. Zheng, B. Chen, X. Du, S. Shi, Data-Driven Anal- ysis for the Bottomonium Potential in the Quark-Gluon Plasma (12 2025). arXiv:2512.11536

    2025

  10. [18]

    B. Wu, R. Rapp, Bottomonium transport in a strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma, Phys. Lett. B 873 (2026) 140223. arXiv:2508.20995, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140223. 6

    2026 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. Á. Escobedo, A. Islam, M. Strick- land, A. Tiwari, A. Vairo, P. Vander Griend, Regenera- tion of bottomonia in an open quantum systems approach, Phys. Rev. D 108 (1) (2023) L011502. arXiv:2302.11826, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L011502

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Brambilla, T

    N. Brambilla, T. Magorsch, M. Strickland, A. Vairo, P. Vander Griend, Bottomonium suppression from the three-loop QCD potential, Phys. Rev. D 109 (11) (2024) 114016. arXiv:2403.15545, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114016

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    X. Yao, W. Ke, Y . Xu, S. A. Bass, B. Müller, Coupled Boltzmann Transport Equations of Heavy Quarks and Quarkonia in Quark-Gluon Plasma, JHEP 01 (2021) 046. arXiv:2004.06746, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)046

    2021 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. Á. Escobedo, A. Islam, M. Strick- land, A. Tiwari, A. Vairo, P. Vander Griend, Heavy quarkonium dynamics at next-to-leading order in the binding energy over temperature, JHEP 08 (2022) 303. arXiv:2205.10289, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)303

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Yao, Open quantum systems for quarkonia, Int

    X. Yao, Open quantum systems for quarkonia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36 (20) (2021) 2130010. arXiv:2102.01736, doi:10.1142/S0217751X21300106

    2021 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Akamatsu, Quarkonium in quark–gluon plasma: Open quantum system approaches re-examined, Prog

    Y . Akamatsu, Quarkonium in quark–gluon plasma: Open quantum system approaches re-examined, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 123 (2022) 103932. arXiv:2009.10559, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103932

    2022 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aaij, et al., Measurement of theb-quark produc- tion cross-section in 7 and 13 TeVppcollisions, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Measurement of theb-quark produc- tion cross-section in 7 and 13 TeVppcollisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (5) (2017) 052002, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 169901 (2017)]. arXiv:1612.05140, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.052002

    2017 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. Á. Escobedo, M. Strickland, A. Vairo, P. Vander Griend, J. H. Weber, Bottomonium suppression in an open quantum system using the quantum trajecto- ries method, JHEP 05 (2021) 136. arXiv:2012.01240, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)136

    2021 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynami- cal Semigroups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynami- cal Semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48 (1976) 119. doi:10.1007/BF01608499

    1976 doi

  20. [28]

    Gorini, A

    V . Gorini, A. Kossakowski, E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems, J. Math. Phys. 17 (1976) 821. doi:10.1063/1.522979

    1976 doi

  21. [29]

    Laine, O

    M. Laine, O. Philipsen, P. Romatschke, M. Tassler, Real-time static potential in hot QCD, JHEP 03 (2007) 054. arXiv:hep-ph/0611300, doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2007/03/054

    2007 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Brambilla, J

    N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo, P. Petreczky, Static quark-antiquark pairs at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 014017. arXiv:0804.0993, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.014017

    2008 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lafferty, A

    D. Lafferty, A. Rothkopf, Improved Gauss law model and in-medium heavy quarkonium at finite density and veloc- ity, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 056010. arXiv:1906.00035, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056010

    2020 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. Zhao, S. Shi, A numerical algorithm for solving the coupled Schrödinger equations using inverse power method, Comput. Phys. Commun. 303 (2024) 109284. arXiv:2403.02747, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109284

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. W. Crater, An inverse power method for the calcula- tion of bound states, J. Comput. Phys. 115 (1994) 470. doi:10.1006/jcph.1994.1215

    1994 doi

  26. [34]

    J. Gu, F. Zhang, Generic method for integrating Lindblad master equations, Phys. Rev. E 112 (4) (2025) 044106. arXiv:2412.13661, doi:10.1103/vnhp-fnl3

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    V . S. Fadin, V . A. Khoze, T. Sjostrand, On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production, Z. Phys. C 48 (1990) 613–622. doi:10.1007/BF01614696

    1990 doi

  28. [36]

    C.-Y . Wong, L. Chatterjee, Effects of final state interac- tion and screening on strange and heavy quark produc- tion, Acta Phys. Hung. A 4 (1996) 201–212. arXiv:hep- ph/9607316, doi:10.1007/BF03155615

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    Acharya, et al.,Υsuppression at forward ra- pidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys

    S. Acharya, et al.,Υsuppression at forward ra- pidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 89–101. arXiv:1805.04387, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.067

    2019 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aad, et al., Production ofΥ(nS) mesons in Pb+Pb and pp collisions at 5.02 TeV, Phys

    G. Aad, et al., Production ofΥ(nS) mesons in Pb+Pb and pp collisions at 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 107 (5) (2023) 054912. arXiv:2205.03042, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.054912

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. M. Sirunyan, et al., Measurement of nuclear mod- ification factors ofΥ(1S),Υ(2S), andΥ(3S) mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 270–293. arXiv:1805.09215, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.006

    2019 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Tumasyan, et al., Observation of theΥ(3S) Meson and Suppression ofΥStates in Pb-Pb Collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, Phys

    A. Tumasyan, et al., Observation of theΥ(3S) Meson and Suppression ofΥStates in Pb-Pb Collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2) (2024) 022302. arXiv:2303.17026, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.022302

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, (3+1)D hydrody- namic simulation of relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 014903. arXiv:1004.1408, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.014903

    2010 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, Elliptic and triangular flow in event-by-event (3+1)D viscous hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 042301. arXiv:1009.3244, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.042301. 7

    2011 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Digal, P

    S. Digal, P. Petreczky, H. Satz, Quarkonium feed down and sequential suppression, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 094015. arXiv:hep-ph/0106017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.094015. 8

    2001 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.