Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Attractor of hydrodynamic attractors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Higher-order hydrodynamic attractors converge to the second-order attractor before the Navier-Stokes limit.

desk verdict Useful cross-theory attractor comparison; the structural result is sound, but the quantitative merge-by-w~20 claim depends on a zero-c2,2 choice that the paper's own Fig. 5 shows matters. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08864 v1 pith:TUV3TQEU submitted 2025-09-10 nucl-th hep-ph

Shile Chen , Shuzhe Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords hydrodynamicattractorheavy-ioncollisionsquark-gluonplasmasecond-orderhydrodynamicsslow-rollexpansiontransportcoefficientsBjorkenflowhydrodynamization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether higher-order hydrodynamic theories, which capture far-from-equilibrium physics, eventually agree with the commonly used second-order equations. Studying boost-invariant conformal plasmas, it claims that all theories sharing the same second-order transport coefficients converge to the same attractor by scaled time w~20, well before any of them reaches the Navier-Stokes solution at w~400. This means the intermediate-time evolution of the energy-momentum tensor is controlled by second-order coefficients alone, regardless of higher-order structure. If true, second-order hydrodynamics with correctly chosen coefficients is adequate from an intermediate time onward, even when the far-from-equilibrium stage would require higher-order theory.

What carries the argument

The key objects are the normalized shear anisotropy phi = Pi/epsilon and the scaled time w = tau T, which turn the conservation and relaxation equations into first-order ODEs: a standalone equation for phi (Eq. 5) or a coupled system with a four-index non-equilibrium moment Phi (Eq. 6). The load-bearing identity is the slow-roll expansion phi = sum A_n/w^n: A1 is the Navier-Stokes term, A2 depends only on the second-order coefficient combination (c2,1 - 16 C_eta/(9 C_tau) c2,2), and third-order coefficients appear only in A3 and beyond. Because the compared theories share c2,1=10/21 and c2,2=0, their attractors coincide before approaching the Navier-Stokes limit.

What would settle it

Solve Eq. (5) for DNMR and PJP with c2,2=27/70 instead of 0 and record where their attractors merge with the coupled-theory attractor; the paper's own Figure 5 indicates a later merging, so the claim that all theories with identical second-order coefficients merge by w~20 would be falsified if the merging point shifts beyond the intermediate window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that, for boost-invariant, transversely homogeneous conformal systems, the attractor of a higher-order hydrodynamic theory converges to the attractor of a second-order theory before either reaches the Navier-Stokes limit. Writing the shear anisotropy in a slow-roll expansion in 1/w, the leading non-trivial coefficient depends only on the second-order coefficients c2,1 and c2,2; higher-order transport coefficients enter only at the next order. Since the compared second- and third-order theories share the same second-order coefficients, their attractors merge by w~20. The paper calls this an 'attractor of attractors' and concludes that second-order hydrodynamics with pro

Load-bearing premise

The cross-theory comparison sets the nonlinear coefficient c2,2 to zero for the DNMR and PJP theories by adopting the relaxation-time approximation (stated just before Eq. 5), yet Figure 5 shows that choosing the hard-sphere value c2,2=27/70 changes how quickly each theory's attractor converges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All theories with identical second-order coefficients share the same attractor by w~20, well before any reaches the Navier-Stokes limit at w~400.
  • Higher-order transport coefficients and additional four-index moments affect only the A3 and higher slow-roll terms, so they do not change intermediate-time stress-tensor evolution.
  • Second-order hydrodynamics with correctly chosen transport coefficients is adequate from an intermediate time onward, even when the far-from-equilibrium regime would require a higher-order description.
  • Slow-roll truncations at third order reproduce the full attractor to about 10^-3 relative accuracy for w>~5, while Navier-Stokes converges only for w>~100.
  • Practical heavy-ion simulations can retain second-order equations without losing accuracy for late-time collective flow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quantitative merging point w~20 likely depends on the choice c2,2=0; with the hard-sphere value c2,2=27/70, Figure 5 suggests the convergence window shifts, so the universal claim is really a statement about the relaxation-time approximation.
  • The slow-roll argument probably extends to non-conformal and transversely inhomogeneous systems, which the paper lists as a next step; if so, second-order codes would remain sufficient for a wider class of observables.
  • The attractor-of-attractors hierarchy implies that the leading late-time stress-tensor behavior is fixed by the second-order transport sector alone, which could guide how kinetic-theory results are matched to hydrodynamic codes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies attractor solutions of transient relativistic hydrodynamics in a conformal, boost-invariant, transversely homogeneous Bjorken flow. For several second-order (MIS, DNMR) and third-order (PJP, BD, YJG) theories, written as ordinary differential equations for the shear anisotropy φ and, for BD/YJG, a fourth-rank moment Φ, it compares the exact attractor with a late-time slow-roll expansion in powers of 1/w. It derives the expansion coefficients A_s^3 and A_c^3, shows that the A2/w^2 subleading term depends only on second-order transport coefficients, and demonstrates numerically that the listed theories with common second-order coefficients merge at w~20 (MIS at w~100) before the Navier-Stokes limit at w~400. The conclusion is that the energy-momentum tensor evolution of higher-order theories is reproduced by properly matched second-order hydrodynamics from an intermediate time onward.

Significance. If correct, the result is practically useful: it would make second-order hydrodynamic simulations adequate at intermediate and late times even when far-from-equilibrium corrections require higher-order moments. The slow-roll coefficients are obtained by direct substitution into the stated equations and are not fitted to the target attractor, and the numerical attractors are computed separately from the evolution equations, so the main line is not circular. The random-coefficient scan over 10^4 samples is a genuine stress test of sensitivity to higher-order coefficients. However, the claim as stated needs additional support for nonzero c2,2 values before the practical conclusion is fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (8)-(10), Supplemental Fig. 5] The quantitative cross-theory merging claim at w≳20 is only demonstrated for the relaxation-time value c2,2=0. A2 in Eq. (8) is linear in (16/9)c2,2Cη, so at fixed c2,1 the subleading correction changes with c2,2. The paper's own Supplemental Fig. 5 shows that the DNMR hard-sphere value c2,2=27/70 and the MIS value c2,2=-3Cλ/(8Cη) delay convergence to the c2,2=0 attractor. Since the abstract's practical conclusion invokes "correct transport coefficients," this is not a cosmetic choice. The central claim has not been tested for common nonzero c2,2 values. I request either a direct numerical scan over c2,2 (with fixed common c2,1 and random higher-order coefficients) with reported merging times, or a restriction of the advertised conclusion to the c2,2=0/RTA class.
  2. [Section "Attractors and asymptotic behaviors", paragraph after Eq. (10)] The statement that theories with the same combination c2,1 - (16Cη/(9Cτ))c2,2 exhibit identical late-time behavior is stronger than Eq. (8) supports. A_s^3 depends on c2,1^2, c2,2^2 and c2,1c2,2 separately, not only through this combination. Thus two theories can have the same A2 but different A3 and different convergence before φNS; this is also consistent with MIS's delayed convergence in Fig. 2. Please qualify the claim to "identical at the A2/w^2 order" or prove that the extra terms cancel at the relevant w.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definitions around Eqs. (5)-(6)] Please define Cη, Cτ, CΦ, and Cλ explicitly at first use; Cτ appears in Eq. (5), CΦ in Eq. (6), and Cλ later in the text without formal definitions.
  2. [Introduction and Table I] DMMZ is listed as a third-order theory in the introduction but has no coefficients in Table I and is absent from Fig. 2; state explicitly that it is not included in the quantitative comparison because its coefficients are unspecified.
  3. [Numerical methods] The numerical procedure for extracting the attractor (e.g., backward integration from large w or solving the boundary condition at w→0) is not described. A short paragraph in the Supplemental Material would make the figures reproducible.
  4. [Figs. 2 and 5] The "converge by w≳20" statement is assessed via visual percent-deviation insets. Give a quantitative convergence threshold and list the deviations for each curve, including the c2,2≠0 cases in Fig. 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the attractor-of-attractors result is obtained by substituting the slow-roll expansion into the given evolution equations and by independent numerical solution; the main caveat is the disclosed c2,2=0 modeling choice, which limits the universality claim but is not a circular fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The input is the generic evolution equations (5) and (6) with coefficients fixed by Tables I and II from the cited theories (MIS, DNMR, PJP, BD, YJG), none of which are defined by or fitted to the paper's target conclusion. The slow-roll coefficients (8), (10), (11) follow by direct substitution of Eq. (7)/(9) into the equations; the paper does not assume that third-order terms are negligible in order to derive the result, it derives that third-order coefficients appear only at A3 and higher. The numerical attractor curves (Figs. 1, 2) are computed from the full ODEs, not from the slow-roll expansion, so the w~20 merging observation is a genuine numerical output. The random-coefficient bands are a sensitivity study over ranges stated explicitly and not tuned to force convergence. No parameter is fitted to the claimed universal attractor, no self-citation carries the load, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The review rule about in-scope limitations: the paper itself discloses the key modeling choice in the paragraph before Eq. (5): 'While DNMR theory predicts c2,2=27/70 for hard-sphere collisions, we adopt the relaxation-time approximation from Ref. [52] for better cross-theory comparison (see Supplemental Materials for c2,2 effects).' Supplemental Fig. 5 then shows that with nonzero c2,2 the DNMR (27/70) and MIS (-3 C_lambda/8 C_eta) attractors do not coincide with the c2,2=0 curves at w~20 and that convergence rates change. This is a genuine scope limitation, because the abstract's universal claim is stronger than what is demonstrated for physical c2,2 values, but it is a correctness/robustness caveat, not circularity. The claim is not defined in terms of the input nor is any output forced by fitting. Score 1 reflects the minor, disclosed modeling dependence rather than a circular step.

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

No parameters are fitted to reproduce the target result. Cη=1/(4π), Cτ=CΦ=5Cη, and Cλ=1/π are theory inputs from the cited literature; the random coefficient ranges in the robustness scan are hand-picked but are not fit parameters. The only notable modeling choice is the relaxation-time approximation for c2,2, which is listed as an ad hoc axiom.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The system is conformal, boost-invariant, and transversely homogeneous (Bjorken flow), so the only nonvanishing shear component is ϖ and the expansion rate is θ=1/τ.
    Invoked in the paragraph before Eq. (3); restricts the result to an idealized geometry. The paper lists relaxing these symmetries as future work.
  • domain assumption The evolution equations (4) and (6), with transport coefficients from Tables I and II, correctly describe the corresponding hydrodynamic theories.
    The paper adopts these equations from Refs. [12,13,14,52,53,54,56,57]; any error in those derivations would propagate into this analysis.
  • standard math The slow-roll expansion φ=Σ A_n/w^n is an asymptotic late-time expansion and its truncation at n=3 captures the relevant intermediate-time behavior.
    Used after Eq. (7) following Heller-Spalinski [20]; the paper relies on it to derive A2 and A3.
  • domain assumption The attractor is the solution satisfying w∂wφ=w∂wΦ=0 as w→0 and is unique.
    Used in Figs. 1-2 and Supplemental; standard in the attractor literature, but the construction method is not detailed.
  • ad hoc to paper The relaxation-time approximation value c2,2=0 is used for DNMR and PJP instead of the hard-sphere DNMR value c2,2=27/70, and the same RTA choice is applied to MIS for comparison.
    Stated in the paragraph before Eq. (5): 'we adopt the relaxation-time approximation from Ref. [52] for better cross-theory comparison'. Figure 5 shows c2,2 changes convergence, so the quantitative result depends on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attractor of hydrodynamic attractors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUV3TQEU

@misc{pith2026250908864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attractor of hydrodynamic attractors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUV3TQEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08864}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding how hydrodynamics emerges rapidly in the medium produced by relativistic heavy-ion collisions remains a key theoretical challenge. While the attractor solution -- manifesting as a non-thermal fixed point during the early evolution stage -- offers a potential explanation, it does not fully account for how far-from-equilibrium systems quickly approach near-equilibrium states. In this Letter, we demonstrate that the attractor in a higher-order hydrodynamic theory converges to the same solution as a second-order theory before reaching the Navier--Stokes limit. This finding suggests that commonly used second-order hydrodynamic equations, provided they incorporate the correct transport coefficients, are adequate to approximate the system's behavior starting from an intermediate time -- even when using a higher-order theory that would be more suitable for describing the far-from-equilibrium evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Attractor solutions in YJG theory [Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Attractor solutions for different theories (top) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Attractor solutions for the BD theory (cf. Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Attractor solutions for the standalone evolution equa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Necessary and sufficient conditions of nonlinear causality in viscous anisotropic hydrodynamics

    nucl-th 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The leading-order VAH equations stay causal exactly when the three dimensionless ratios in Eq. (21) satisfy the stated chain inequalities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, The iEBE-VISHNU code package for relativis- tic heavy-ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Elliptic and triangu- lar flow in event-by-event (3+1)D viscous hydrodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 042301 (2011), arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Karpenko, P

    I. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, and M. Bleicher, A 3+1 dimensional viscous hydrodynamic code for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 3016 (2014), arXiv:1312.4160 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    van der Schee, P

    W. van der Schee, P. Romatschke, and S. Pratt, Fully Dy- namical Simulation of Central Nuclear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 222302 (2013), arXiv:1307.2539 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Pseudo- rapidity distribution and decorrelation of anisotropic flow within the open-computing-language implementa- tion CL Visc hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C97, 064918 (2018), arXiv:1802.04449 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Du and U

    L. Du and U. Heinz, (3+1)-dimensional dissipative rel- ativistic fluid dynamics at non-zero net baryon den- sity, Comput. Phys. Commun.251, 107090 (2020), arXiv:1906.11181 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Equation of state in ( 2+1 )-flavor QCD, Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Equation of state in ( 2+1 )-flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo (Wuppertal-Budapest), Is there still anyT c mystery in lattice QCD? Results with physical masses in the continuum limit III, JHEP09, 073, arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Fluid mechanics(1959)

    1959

  3. [11]

    Baier, P

    R. Baier, P. Romatschke, D. T. Son, A. O. Starinets, and M. A. Stephanov, Relativistic viscous hydrodynam- ics, conformal invariance, and holography, JHEP04, 100, arXiv:0712.2451 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Muller, Zum Paradoxon der Warmeleitungstheorie, Z

    I. Muller, Zum Paradoxon der Warmeleitungstheorie, Z. Phys.198, 329 (1967)

    1967

  5. [13]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Transient relativistic ther- modynamics and kinetic theory, Annals Phys.118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  6. [14]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Molnar, and D. H. Rischke, Derivation of transient relativistic fluid dynamics from the Boltzmann equation, Phys. Rev. D85, 114047 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 039902 (2015)], arXiv:1202.4551 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions, Phys. Rev. D44, 3501 (1991)

    1991

  10. [18]

    Gyulassy and X.-N

    M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.83, 307 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9502021

    1994 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

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

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and T. Preis, Prescaling Relaxation to Nonthermal Attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 071602 (2024), arXiv:2307.07545 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Baier, A

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

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venu- gopalan, Universal attractor in a highly occupied non- Abelian plasma, Phys. Rev. D89, 114007 (2014), arXiv:1311.3005 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kurkela and Y

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

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pr¨ ufer, P

    M. Pr¨ ufer, P. Kunkel, H. Strobel, S. Lannig, D. Lin- nemann, C.-M. Schmied, J. Berges, T. Gasenzer, and M. K. Oberthaler, Observation of universal dynamics in a spinor Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature563, 217 (2018), arXiv:1805.11881 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. Erne, R. B¨ ucker, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmiedmayer, Universal dynamics in an isolated one- dimensional Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature563, 225 (2018), arXiv:1805.12310 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. P. Johnstone, A. J. Groszek, P. T. Starkey, C. J. Billington, T. P. Simula, and K. Helmerson, Evolution of large-scale flow from turbulence in a two-dimensional superfluid, Science364, 1267 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aat5793

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Martirosyan, C

    G. Martirosyan, C. J. Ho, J. Etrych, Y. Zhang, A. Cao, Z. Hadzibabic, and C. Eigen, Observation of Subdiffusive Dynamic Scaling in a Driven and Disordered Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 113401 (2024), arXiv:2304.06697 6 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. P. Heller and C. Werthmann, Early time hydrody- namic attractor in a nearly-unitary Fermi gas, (2025), arXiv:2507.02838 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Micha and I

    R. Micha and I. I. Tkachev, Relativistic turbulence: A Long way from preheating to equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 121301 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210202

    2003 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Berges, A

    J. Berges, A. Rothkopf, and J. Schmidt, Non-thermal fixed points: Effective weak-coupling for strongly corre- lated systems far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 041603 (2008), arXiv:0803.0131 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics Far From Local Equilibrium, Phys

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

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Romatschke, Relativistic Hydrodynamic Attractors with Broken Symmetries: Non-Conformal and Non- Homogeneous, JHEP12, 079, arXiv:1710.03234 [hep-th]

    P. Romatschke, Relativistic Hydrodynamic Attractors with Broken Symmetries: Non-Conformal and Non- Homogeneous, JHEP12, 079, arXiv:1710.03234 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Fluid dynamics of out of equi- librium boost invariant plasmas, Phys. Lett. B780, 283 (2018), arXiv:1712.03856 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

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

    M. Spali´ nski, On the hydrodynamic attractor of Yang–Mills plasma, Phys. Lett. B776, 468 (2018), arXiv:1708.01921 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Busuioc, J. A. Fotakis, K. Gallmeis- ter, and C. Greiner, Bjorken flow attractors with trans- verse dynamics, Phys. Rev. D104, 094022 (2021), arXiv:2102.11785 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kurkela, W

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

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Almaalol, A

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

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Blaizot and L

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

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Analytical attractor for Bjorken flows, Phys. Lett. B820, 136478 (2021), arXiv:2006.08815 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Attractor and fixed points in Bjorken flows, Phys. Rev. C104, 055201 (2021), arXiv:2106.10508 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Chen and S

    S. Chen and S. Shi, Attractor for (1+1)D viscous hydro- dynamics with general rapidity distribution, Phys. Rev. C111, L021902 (2025), arXiv:2407.15209 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Romatschke and U

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

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Alqahtani, M

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

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Florkowski, M

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

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Berges, M

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

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Shen and L

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

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bazow, G

    D. Bazow, G. S. Denicol, U. Heinz, M. Martinez, and J. Noronha, Analytic solution of the Boltzmann equation in an expanding system, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 022301 (2016), arXiv:1507.07834 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Lu and S

    X. Lu and S. Shi, Spectral BBGKY: a scalable scheme for nonlinear Boltzmann and correlation kinetics, (2025), arXiv:2507.14243 [nucl-th]

    2025

  43. [51]

    G. S. Denicol and J. Noronha, Analytical attractor and the divergence of the slow-roll expansion in relativis- tic hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D97, 056021 (2018), arXiv:1711.01657 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Strickland, J

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

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    S. M. Diles, L. A. H. Mamani, A. S. Miranda, and V. T. Zanchin, Third-order relativistic hydrodynamics: disper- sion relations and transport coefficients of a dual plasma, JHEP2020(5), 1, arXiv:1909.05199 [hep-th]

    1909 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Panday, A

    P. Panday, A. Jaiswal, and B. K. Patra, Causal third-order viscous hydrodynamics within relaxation- time approximation, Phys. Rev. D109, 096039 (2024), arXiv:2404.06381 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    G. S. Denicol, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Transport Co- efficients of Bulk Viscous Pressure in the 14-moment approximation, Phys. Rev. C90, 024912 (2014), arXiv:1403.0962 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    C. V. P. de Brito and G. S. Denicol, Third-order rel- ativistic dissipative fluid dynamics from the method of moments, Phys. Rev. D108, 096020 (2023), arXiv:2302.09097 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    D. Ye, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Evolution equation for the energy-momentum moments of the nonequilibrium density function and regularized relativistic third-order hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C110, 024907 (2024), arXiv:2404.08204 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chen and S

    S. Chen and S. Shi, Anisotropic hydrodynamics with a boost-noninvariant expansion, Phys. Rev. D111, 014001 (2025), arXiv:2409.19897 [nucl-th]. 7 Supplementary Material More about Attractors 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0φ MIS NS 102 5 20 50 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 w φ/φMIS-1 (%) 1st (NS...

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    For coupled equations (6), we find: Φ(w→0) = cΦ,φφ0 cΦ,Φ +c Φ,2φ0 ,(13) whereφ 0 solves: φ2 0 +c 2,1φ0 − cφ,ΦcΦ,φφ0 cΦ,Φ +c Φ,2φ0 = 16Cη 9Cτ .(14)

    andw∂ wφ= 0 yields: (1 +c 3,2)φ2 0 +c 2,1φ0 − 16Cη 9Cτ =−c 3,1 Cτ φ0 w .(12) This gives: •Whenc 3,1 ̸= 0:φ 0 → 16Cηw 9c3,1C2τ ; •Otherwise:φ 0 = q c2 2,1+ 64Cη 9Cτ (1+c3,2)−c2,1 2(1+c3,2) . For coupled equations (6), we find: Φ(w→0) = cΦ,φφ0 cΦ,Φ +c Φ,2φ0 ,(13) whereφ 0 solves...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.