Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Flavor--Kinetic Entanglement Production from Decay and Scattering at Finite Density

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At leading order, flavor-kinetic entanglement entropy equals twice the total branch-changing probability.

desk verdict A clean formal extension of the scattering-entanglement dictionary to finite density, with a suggestive but not yet independent phase-transition diagnostic. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07995 v1 pith:UJFE6HDQ submitted 2026-08-08 hep-ph quant-ph

Zekun Li , Jia Liu , Xiao-Ping Wang , Jing-Jun Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phquant-ph
keywords flavor-kineticentanglementlinearentropyscatteringfinite-densityquantumfieldtheoryBoltzmanncollisionoperatorreactiondensitythermalphasetransitionsO(N)scalarmodel
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 extends the scattering-entanglement dictionary from vacuum to finite-density thermal environments. It argues that if one separates a state's discrete flavor labels from its continuous momentum content, the leading flavor-kinetic entanglement entropy of an event is simply twice the total probability of moving to a different flavor branch, $E_{fk} = 2P_{BC} + O(P_{BC}^2)$. At finite density the same replacement holds for the 2-to-2 channels considered, with the vacuum branch-changing probability replaced by an occupation-weighted collision probability built from the directed reaction-density kernel that also enters integrated Boltzmann equations. As a proof of principle, the paper evaluates this bath-averaged entanglement entropy in an $O(N)$ singlet-scalar model and finds a finite jump across a first-order phase transition and a nonanalytic temperature derivative across a continuous one, suggesting a collision-based phase-transition-type diagnostic. The observable is defined per pair sampled from the bath, not as a thermodynamic entropy of the full medium.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the flavor-kinetic bipartition plus the linear entropy, used in the perturbative regime where each event's total branch-changing probability is small. The partition separates discrete labels (species, spin, helicity, flavor) in $H_f$ from continuous momentum configurations in $H_{\rm kin}$; tracing out the kinematic factor makes the reduced flavor density matrix block structured, and the optical theorem fixes the incoming-block depletion to $1-P_{BC}$. That yields the leading identity $E_{fk} = 2P_{BC} + O(P_{BC}^2)$, with incoming-final and final-final coherence blocks contributing only at quadratic order. At finite density the vacuum probability is promoted to a reaction density $\Gamma_{ab\to cd}$ with initial occupation weights, final-state Bose-enhancement or Pauli-blocking factors $\Xi_c\Xi_d = (1\pm f_c)(1\pm f_d)$, and medium-dressed amplitudes; the same kernel appears in the integrated Boltzmann equation. In the application, the thermal background $v(T)$ from a dressed one-loop effective potential fixes masses, distributions, and amplitudes, and the normalized ratio $\hat{E}_{fk}(T) = E_{fk}^{\rm FD}(T)/E_{fk}^{\rm FD}(T_{\rm sym})$ plus its temperature derivative become the phase-transition-type diagnostic.

What would settle it

Evaluate $E_{fk}^{\rm FD}$ near $T_c$ with the background $v(T)$ artificially held smooth, for example replaced by a constant across the transition while keeping the same collision kernel; if the jump and derivative kink survive, they come from the kernel, whereas if they vanish, the diagnostic is inherited from $v(T)$. A second check is to repeat the same scan with a nonperturbative or lattice-derived background and see whether the $J_{fk}$ map still tracks the phase boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a dictionary: for the flavor-kinetic bipartition $H = H_f \otimes H_{\rm kin}$, tracing over kinematic degrees of freedom maps the total branch-changing transition probability onto the leading linear entanglement entropy, $E_{fk} = 1 - \mathrm{Tr}_f(\rho_f^2) = 2P_{BC} + O(P_{BC}^2)$, so same-branch momentum-changing scattering does not entangle at leading order. In a thermal bath the fixed-momentum probability is replaced by $E_{fk}^{\rm FD} = 2P_{BC}^{\rm FD} + O(P^2)$, with $P_{BC}^{\rm FD} = \sum_{cd\in BC(ab)} S_{ab}\tau/(n_a n_b V)\,\Gamma_{ab\to cd}$, where $\Gamma_{ab\to cd}$ contains the occupation factors $f_a f_b (1\pm f_c)(1\pm f_d)$, the finite-density amplitude, and phase-space integrals. The key structural point is that this same $\Gamma_{ab\to cd}$ is the building block of the integrated Boltzmann equation, so entanglement production and chemical relaxation are controlled by the same directed reaction-density kernel, differing only in projection: Boltzmann combines kernels into gain-minus-loss flows, while $E_{fk}$ keeps positive branch-changing kernels normalized per sampled pair. Applied to an $O(N)$ scalar extended model on a thermal quasiparticle background, the normalized quantity $\hat{E}_{fk}(T)$ develops a finite jump at a first-order transition (about $J_{fk}\approx -0.13$ in the benchmark) and a continuous value with a nonanalytic first derivative at a continuous transition, matching the effective-potential classification in the examples shown.

Load-bearing premise

The diagnostic's clearest behavior is read from an equilibrium thermal background $v(T)$ obtained from the same finite-temperature effective potential that defines the transition type, so the observed jump or derivative kink may simply inherit the background's nonanalyticity rather than reveal new physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The leading flavor-kinetic entanglement entropy can be computed in dense environments directly from the same occupation-weighted collision rates that drive particle abundances, so in-medium quantum-information observables can be built from existing Boltzmann inputs.
  • Across a first-order transition the normalized entanglement entropy jumps, while across a continuous transition its first derivative kinks, giving a collision-based signature of transition type that does not require measuring a thermodynamic order parameter.
  • Because the same directed reaction-density kernel controls chemical relaxation and entanglement production, independent access to either quantity constrains the other.
  • The construction supplies an event-level, bath-averaged definition of flavor-kinetic entanglement for pairs in a plasma, with explicit Bose-enhancement and Pauli-blocking factors, ready for use in early-universe and astrophysical settings where 2-to-2 channels dominate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's own explanation ties the nonanalyticities to the thermal background $v(T)$, the natural next test is to evaluate $\hat{E}_{fk}$ with an artificially smooth background to separate kernel-driven structure from inherited structure.
  • Because only branch-changing channels contribute at leading order, the diagnostic is sensitive to number-changing reactions such as annihilation and pair conversion, so it may behave very differently in a crossover or after such reactions freeze out.
  • Extending the same dictionary to 2-to-n channels or to matrix-valued Wigner functions over flavor and momentum coherences would bring the coherence blocks into play at higher order, and could sharpen or wash out the phase-transition signature.
  • The equal-weight sum over species pairs in the aggregate entropy is a modeling choice; reweighting by relative abundances or reaction volumes would likely change the quantitative jumps even if the qualitative transition-type pattern survives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the scattering-entanglement dictionary to finite-density environments. It defines a flavor-kinetic bipartition of the Fock space and derives, in Sec. II, the leading-order relation E_fk = 2 P_BC + O(P_BC^2), where P_BC is the total probability for populating final flavor branches different from the incoming branch. In Sec. III, the vacuum branch-changing probability is replaced by an occupation-weighted collision probability built from the directed reaction-density kernel Gamma_ab->cd of Eq. (49), and the bath-averaged flavor-kinetic entanglement entropy of a sampled pair is shown to be E_FD = 2 tau/V <sigma^FD_BC v_rel> + O(P^2), the same kernel appearing in the integrated Boltzmann equation. In Sec. IV, the construction is applied to an O(N) singlet-scalar extended model, with the collision kernel evaluated on the equilibrium thermal background v(T) obtained from the finite-temperature effective potential. The paper reports a finite jump in the normalized E_fk across a first-order phase transition and a nonanalytic temperature derivative for a continuous transition, and it interprets this as a phase-transition-type diagnostic.

Significance. The formal dictionary derived in Secs. II and III is clean and appears correct: the leading flavor-kinetic linear entropy is exactly twice the branch-changing probability, and its finite-density generalization is the per-pair occupation-weighted collision probability. This is a useful and nontrivial extension of the vacuum scattering-entanglement program, and the explicit connection to the Boltzmann collision operator is valuable. The paper is careful about definitions, states its approximations, and provides a coherence-block derivation in Appendix A. However, the claimed novelty of the phase-transition diagnostic is not established: the application evaluates E_fk on the same equilibrium background v(T) that is used to label the transition, so the observed jump and derivative kink are inherited from the background rather than demonstrated to be independent of traditional thermodynamic order parameters. The authors themselves describe the comparison as a consistency check at the end of Sec. IV.C, which is more measured than the abstract's claim of a 'novel way...

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B and Appendix B (Eqs. B3-B5); Sec. IV.C] The phase-transition-type diagnostic is not shown to be independent of the traditional order parameter. The thermal background v(T) used to evaluate the collision kernel is the global minimum of V_dressed_eff, the same effective potential used to classify the transition via Eq. (B5). Every temperature-dependent input to the reaction density in Eq. (49) depends on v(T): the thermal masses in Eq. (B6), the Bose-Einstein distributions, the phase-space and statistical factors, and the background-expanded amplitudes. A first-order discontinuity in v(T) is therefore necessarily transmitted to E_fk(T), and a nonanalytic d v/dT is transmitted to dE_fk/dT, unless the kernel's v-derivative vanishes accidentally. The observed jump and derivative kink are thus consistency checks on the background, as the authors state at the end of Sec. IV.C, but they do not demonstrate the abstract's claim of a diagnostic 'distinct from traditional thermodynamic order parameters.' I recommend either softening the claim or providing a concrete test of independence: evaluate E_fk on an independently prescribed v(T), for example a template or externally computed order parameter, and check whether the transition type can be identified without using the same effective potential as the reference classification.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (58)-(61) and Eq. (53)] The diagnostic's quantitative discrimination depends on choices that are not robustness-tested. The separation between first-order and continuous behavior uses a fixed delta-T = 0.31 GeV (set by the temperature grid) and a 2% contour in |J_fk|; the paper states that J_fk is O(delta-T) at continuous transitions and vanishes as delta-T -> 0, so the 2% level is calibrated to this numerical residual. In addition, the aggregate in Eq. (53) weights all active species pairs equally rather than by bath abundances. Please report how J_fk and the derivative kink change when delta-T is varied and when pair weights are chosen on physical grounds (for example, proportional to n_a n_b), and justify that the 2% threshold is not the origin of the apparent FOPT/continuous separation in Fig. 2.
  3. [Appendix B] The numerical application is not fully reproducible because the in-medium matrix elements M^FD_{cd,ab} are not specified. Appendix B states only that the symmetric-phase families are contact channels and that the broken phase retains the h S_i S_i cubic vertex 'when exchange diagrams are retained,' but no Feynman rules, explicit amplitude expressions, or treatment of thermal widths are given. Since Figs. 1 and 2 are the evidence for the phase-diagnostic claim, the paper should provide the explicit amplitudes and integration details, or at least a self-contained summary sufficient for the benchmarks to be reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1) and Eq. (49)] The schematic formula in Eq. (1) uses (1 +/- f) while the main definition in Eq. (49) uses Xi_c Xi_d; please align the notation or explain that the factors are the same final-state statistical factors.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (27)] The condition delta(m_F, m_F') is described as requiring the same on-shell mass multiset, but the text also requires the same particle number; the measure in Eq. (27) shows both, but the wording should make this explicit.
  3. [Sec. IV.A and Fig. 1] The normalized quantity is denoted bEfk(T) in the text and figures, but the hat is typeset inconsistently with E^FD_fk(T); please unify the notation.
  4. [Sec. IV.A] The statement that J_fk is 'of order delta-T' for continuous transitions is asserted without a supporting argument; a short explanation based on the smoothness of v(T) and of the collision kernel would improve clarity.
  5. [Sec. V] The limitations listed in the Conclusions are appropriately transparent, but the same caveats should appear earlier in the paper, particularly in the Abstract, so that the consistency-check status of the application is not obscured.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phase-transition diagnostic inherits its nonanalytic structure from the same v(T) used to classify the transition; the formal E_fk = 2P_BC dictionary is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.C and Appendix B; Eqs. (49), (59), (67), (B3)-(B6)]
    "The reaction densities in Eq. (49) are evaluated on the equilibrium background v(T): this background controls the dressed quasiparticle masses, phase-space and statistical weights, and the background-expanded amplitudes ... The comparison with the finite-temperature effective potential should therefore be understood as a consistency check ... Numerically, T_c and the phase label are first obtained from the effective-potential scan."

    The claimed diagnostic is evaluated on v(T) obtained by minimizing V_dressed_eff, the same potential used in Eq. (B5) to define T_c and classify FOPT vs continuous. The kernel inputs—quasiparticle masses, Bose-Einstein occupations f_r in Eq. (B6), phase space, statistical factors, and in-medium amplitudes—all depend on T through v(T), so a discontinuity or nonanalyticity of v(T) is generically transmitted to bEfk(T) and its derivative. The paper itself labels the comparison 'a consistency check', not an independent test; hence the abstract's 'novel way ... distinct from traditional thermodynamic order parameters' overstates what the examples show. The formal E_FD=2P_BC+O(P^2) relation is not circular.

full rationale

The formal dictionary in Secs. II-III is self-contained: Eq. (29) follows from the optical theorem and positivity of the reduced flavor density matrix, and Eq. (52) is the f_a f_b/(n_a n_b) average of the event-level relation, with no fitted parameter and no reliance on self-citation. The 'same kernel as the Boltzmann equation' is a definitional identification, not a circular prediction. The circularity is confined to the application: bEfk(T) is a functional of the same equilibrium background v(T) that supplies the reference phase classification, so the observed jump/kink is inherited background nonanalyticity rather than a novel order-parameter-independent diagnostic. The paper is transparent about this in Sec. IV.C, but the abstract and scanning claims go beyond the demonstrated content. Self-citations (Refs. [35,82]) are used for model conventions, not to justify the central theorem; they do not add circularity. Score 6 reflects one application-level prediction that reduces by construction, while the central scattering-entanglement result remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The formal derivation has minimal hidden assumptions; the main burden sits in the application, where the observable inherits the phase structure from the effective-potential background and the discrimination depends on chosen thresholds and pair-weighting, not on independently verified input.

free parameters (4)
  • delta-T (temperature offset) = 0.31 GeV
    Chosen to set the temperature grid spacing for comparing T_bro and T_sym; affects the residual J_fk for continuous transitions and the resolution of the jump.
  • Contour threshold |J_fk| = 2% = 0.02
    Chosen to distinguish first-order from continuous transitions against the residual introduced by finite delta-T; a post-hoc classification threshold.
  • Equal-weight aggregate over species pairs
    E^FD_fk is defined as a sum over active species pairs with equal weight (Eq. 53), rather than weighted by pair abundances; this choice affects the numerical value and the diagnostic.
  • Model parameters (lambda_hS, lambda_S, mu_S, N) = benchmarks lambda_hS=3.0, lambda_S=1.0/3.0, mu_S=50/100/400 GeV, N=4
    Input parameters for the O(N) scalar model; scanned to produce the phase-transition plots.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Unitarity of the S-matrix (optical theorem)
    Used to set the diagonal depletion term (1-P_BC) in the reduced density matrix, Eq. (24).
  • domain assumption Perturbative event probability P_event << 1
    The leading-order expression E_fk = 2P_BC + O(P^2) relies on the small-probability expansion; stated in Sec. II.A.
  • domain assumption Bath is an incoherent product of on-shell quasiparticle ensembles with diagonal momentum distributions
    The finite-density background in Sec. III.A is restricted to factorized single-particle density matrices; neglects off-diagonal coherences and genuine many-body correlations.
  • domain assumption The perturbative finite-temperature effective potential correctly determines the phase structure
    The reference FOPT/SOPT classification and the thermal background v(T) come from minimizing the dressed one-loop potential of Appendix B, which inherits gauge and resummation uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The active 2-to-2 channels in Eqs. (63)-(64) dominate the branch-changing collision activity
    Other reactions, such as decays, 2-to-3 processes, and channels involving gauge bosons or fermions, are omitted; the analysis is restricted to 2-to-2 quasiparticle scattering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flavor--Kinetic Entanglement Production from Decay and Scattering at Finite Density." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJFE6HDQ

@misc{pith2026260807995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flavor--Kinetic Entanglement Production from Decay and Scattering at Finite Density},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJFE6HDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07995}
}
abstract

We extend the scattering-entanglement dictionary to finite-density environments by investigating the flavor--kinetic bipartition of the Hilbert space. We show that tracing over kinematic degrees of freedom maps the total branch-changing transition probability directly onto the leading flavor--kinetic linear entanglement entropy. At finite density, the vacuum branch-changing probability is replaced by an occupation-weighted collision probability, built from the same directed reaction-density kernel that enters the integrated Boltzmann equation. The resulting observable is the bath-averaged flavor--kinetic entanglement entropy of a pair sampled from the medium. As a proof of principle, this framework is applied to an $O(N)$ singlet-scalar extended model to probe thermal phase transitions. In the examples studied, the resulting entanglement entropy serves as a collision-based phase-transition-type diagnostic, exhibiting a finite discontinuity across a first-order phase transition and a nonanalytic temperature derivative for continuous transitions. These examples suggest a novel way to characterize thermal phase structures, distinct from traditional thermodynamic order parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Benchmark finite-density flavor–kinetic entanglement entropy. Panel (a) shows the first-order benchmark, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Parameter scans of the signed dimensionless jump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Seki, I. Y. Park, and S.-J. Sin, Phys. Lett. B743, 147 (2015), arXiv:1412.7894 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Phys. Lett. B758, 89 (2016), arXiv:1602.00720 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Carney, L

    D. Carney, L. Chaurette, and G. Semenoff, arXiv e-prints (2016), arXiv:1606.03103 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, SciPost Phys.3, 036 (2017), arXiv:1703.02989 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    J. Fan, Y. Deng, and Y.-C. Huang, Phys. Rev. D95, 065017 (2017), arXiv:1703.07911 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Fedida and A

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Phys. Rev. D107, 116007 (2023), arXiv:2209.01405 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, Phys. Rev. D113, 065004 (2026), arXiv:2405.08056 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, Phys. Rev. D111, 065027 (2025), arXiv:2410.22414 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Aoude, G

    R. Aoude, G. Elor, G. N. Remmen, and O. Sumensari, Fortsch. Phys.74, e70113 (2026), arXiv:2402.16956 [hep- th]

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.139, 104134 (2024), arXiv:2402.07972 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 907 (2021), arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161801 (2021), arXiv:2102.11883 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Severi, C

    C. Severi, C. D. E. Boschi, F. Maltoni, and M. Sioli, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 285 (2022), arXiv:2110.10112 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Quantum6, 820 (2022), arXiv:2203.05582 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 221801 (2023), arXiv:2209.03969 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Phys. Rev. D106, 055007 (2022), arXiv:2203.05619 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 666 (2022), arXiv:2205.00542 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ashby-Pickering, A

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, JHEP05(05), 020, arXiv:2209.13990 [quant-ph]

  11. [19]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and S. Trifinopoulos, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2510.23773 [hep-ph]

    2025

  12. [20]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and P. P. Giardino, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2603.11288 [hep-ph]

    2026

  13. [21]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Nature633, 542 (2024), arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Nature633, 542 (2024), arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Rept

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Rept. Prog. Phys.87, 117801 (2024), arXiv:2406.03976 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. J. Barr, Phys. Lett. B825, 136866 (2022), arXiv:2106.01377 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, Phys. Rev. D107, 016012 (2023), arXiv:2209.13441 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Mar- zola, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 823 (2023), arXiv:2302.00683 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, JHEP 12(12), 017, arXiv:2307.09675 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Mar- zola, JHEP09(09), 195, arXiv:2304.02403 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ehat¨ aht, M

    K. Ehat¨ aht, M. Fabbrichesi, L. Marzola, and C. Veelken, Phys. Rev. D109, 032005 (2024), arXiv:2311.17555 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gabrielli and L

    E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola, Symmetry16, 1036 (2024), arXiv:2408.05010 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cheng and B

    K. Cheng and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011902 (2025), arXiv:2501.03321 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    W. Gong, G. Parida, Z. Tu, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D106, L031501 (2022), arXiv:2107.13007 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, Phys. Rev. D95, 114008 (2017), arXiv:1702.03489 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. M. Quinta, A. Sousa, and Y. Omar, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2207.03303 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Thaler and S

    J. Thaler and S. Trifinopoulos, Phys. Rev. D111, 056021 (2025), arXiv:2410.23343 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. Liu, M. Tanaka, X.-P. Wang, J.-J. Zhang, and Z. Zheng, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2511.17321 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 102001 (2019), arXiv:1812.03138 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Low and T

    I. Low and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. D104, 074014 (2021), arXiv:2104.10835 [hep-th]. 13

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. C107, 025204 (2023), arXiv:2210.12085 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Liu and I

    Q. Liu and I. Low, Phys. Lett. B856, 138899 (2024), arXiv:2312.02289 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    T.-R. Hu, S. Chen, K. Sone, F.-K. Guo, T. Hy- odo, and I. Low, PoSHADRON2025, 104 (2026), arXiv:2507.22694 [hep-ph]

    2026

  33. [41]

    McGinnis, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.21079 [hep-th]

    N. McGinnis, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.21079 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    McGinnis, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2511.10559 [hep-th]

    N. McGinnis, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2511.10559 [hep-th]

    2025

  35. [43]

    Low and P

    I. Low and P. Goswami, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2605.20661 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Sone, T.-R

    K. Sone, T.-R. Hu, F.-K. Guo, T. Hyodo, and I. Low, inSoutheast Asian Workshop on Nuclear and Hadron Physics(2026) arXiv:2602.09630 [hep-ph]

    2026

  37. [45]

    I. Low, T. R. Richardson, and S. Trifinopoulos, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.17148 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Carena, I

    M. Carena, I. Low, C. E. M. Wagner, and M.-L. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D109, L051901 (2024), arXiv:2307.08112 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Carena, G

    M. Carena, G. Coloretti, W. Liu, M. Littmann, I. Low, and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP08(2025), 016, arXiv:2505.00873 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kowalska and E

    K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, JHEP07(2024), 156, arXiv:2404.13743 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kowalska and E

    K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, JHEP04(04), 014, arXiv:2510.04200 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Grignani and G

    G. Grignani and G. W. Semenoff, Phys. Lett. B772, 699 (2017), arXiv:1612.08858 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fan and X

    J. Fan and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 016011 (2018), arXiv:1712.06237 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. Bose, P. Haldar, A. Sinha, P. Sinha, and S. S. Tiwari, SciPost Phys.9, 081 (2020), arXiv:2006.12213 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cheung, T

    C. Cheung, T. He, and A. Sivaramakrishnan, Phys. Rev. D108, 045013 (2023), arXiv:2304.13052 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    C. M. Sou, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, JHEP10(10), 003, arXiv:2507.03555 [hep-th]

  47. [55]

    K.-F. Lyu, R. Muraleedharan, and K. Sinha, JHEP06 (06), 210, arXiv:2511.09623 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gargalionis, N

    J. Gargalionis, N. Moynihan, S. Trifinopoulos, E. N. V. Wallace, C. D. White, and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D 113, 016007 (2026), arXiv:2508.14967 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and L. Marzola, arXiv e- prints (2026), arXiv:2606.24468 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Q.-H. Cao, Y. Liu, H. Qi, H. Zhang, and H. Zhao, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2605.22070 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Phys. Rev. D113, 105023 (2026), arXiv:2601.22502 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gargalionis, N

    J. Gargalionis, N. Moynihan, M. L. Reichenberg Ashby, E. N. V. Wallace, C. D. White, and M. J. White, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2603.04148 [hep-th]

    2026

  53. [61]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Phys. Rev. D100, 076012 (2019), arXiv:1906.09696 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale,Finite-Temperature Field Theory: Principles and Applications, Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Laine and A

    M. Laine and A. Vuorinen,Basics of Thermal Field Theory, Lect. Notes Phys., Vol. 925 (Springer, 2016) arXiv:1701.01554 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Quiros, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology(1999) pp

    M. Quiros, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology(1999) pp. 187–259, arXiv:hep- ph/9901312

    1999

  57. [65]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP01 (01), 030, arXiv:hep-ph/0209353

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145 (1991)

    1991

  59. [67]

    J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B305, 98 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9301285

    1993 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Profumo, M

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, JHEP08(08), 010, arXiv:0705.2425 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade, and C.-T. Yu, JHEP11(11), 127, arXiv:1409.0005 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Kurup and M

    G. Kurup and M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. D96, 015036 (2017), arXiv:1704.03381 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Xia, Phys. Rev. D110, 115016 (2024), arXiv:2405.01191 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen,Quan- tum Information Meets Quantum Matter: From Quan- tum Entanglement to Topological Phases of Many-Body Systems, Quantum Science and Technology (Springer,

  65. [73]

    S. R. De Groot,Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications, edited by W. A. Van Leeuwen and C. G. Van Weert (North-Holland, 1980)

    1980

  66. [74]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, Vol. 69 (Taylor and Francis, 2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Stodolsky, Phys

    L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D36, 2273 (1987)

    1987

  68. [76]

    Raffelt, G

    G. Raffelt, G. Sigl, and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2363 (1993), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 98, 069902 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/9209276

    1993 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Sigl and G

    G. Sigl and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B406, 423 (1993)

    1993

  70. [78]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9, 3320 (1974)

    1974

  71. [79]

    M. E. Carrington, Phys. Rev. D45, 2933 (1992)

    1992

  72. [80]

    Ekstedt and J

    A. Ekstedt and J. L¨ ofgren, JHEP12(2020), 136, arXiv:2006.12614 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    D. J. H. Chung, A. J. Long, and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D87, 023509 (2013), arXiv:1209.1819 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    J. Liu, M. Tanaka, X.-P. Wang, J.-J. Zhang, and Z. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D112, 015028 (2025), arXiv:2505.06001 [hep-ph]

    2025

  75. [83]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade, and H. Ramani, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 787 (2018), arXiv:1612.00466 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  76. [2019]

    arXiv:1508.02595 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.