Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Quasiparticle second-order dissipative hydrodynamics at finite chemical potential

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Closed second-order relativistic viscous hydrodynamics is derived at finite baryon chemical potential from a thermodynamically consistent quasiparticle model, with all transport coefficients determined by the equation of state.

desk verdict A substantial but unvalidated quasiparticle extension to finite mu, with a likely second-order truncation error in the bulk sector. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06024 v1 pith:XMVJYL7H submitted 2024-12-08 hep-ph nucl-th

Asaad Daher , Leonardo Tinti , Amaresh Jaiswal , Radoslaw Ryblewski This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords quasiparticlemodelsecond-orderdissipativehydrodynamicsfinitechemicalpotentialbaryondiffusioncurrentshearviscositybulkrelaxation-timeapproximationtransportcoefficients
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

Relativistic hydrodynamics for the quark-gluon plasma has been derived to second order in gradients in the past, but previous derivations either ignored baryon number or used an ideal-gas equation of state, which is not realistic for dense matter produced in heavy-ion collisions. This paper aims to close that gap: it constructs a quasiparticle model with medium-dependent masses for charged and neutral quasiparticles, plus a 'bag' tensor that enforces energy-momentum conservation, and derives from it a closed set of evolution equations for the stress-energy tensor and the baryon current at second order. The resulting transport coefficients—first-order shear viscosity $\eta$, bulk viscosity $\zeta$, and baryon diffusion coefficient $\kappa_b$, and all second-order coefficients—are expressed through thermodynamic integrals that depend on the chosen equation of state, making the theory ready for realistic lattice-calibrated input. The payoff would be a thermodynamically consistent, ready-to-use second-order viscous hydrodynamics at finite baryon density, in which all transport coefficients are fixed by the equation of state rather than chosen ad hoc.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Boltzmann-Vlasov-type kinetic description for three generalized distribution functions—charged, anticharged, and neutral quasiparticles—with medium-dependent masses $M(\alpha,\beta)$ and $m(\alpha,\beta)$, evolved by relaxation-type equations with a single relaxation time $\tau_{\rm eq}$ (Eqs. (45) and (50)). A bag tensor $B^{\mu\nu}$ with four out-of-equilibrium degrees of freedom is introduced so that the four-momentum conservation equations are automatically satisfied; a Gibbs-Duhem relation (74) connected to the grand-canonical ensemble ensures that the bag is consistent with the equation of state. The exact Landau-matching relations (21) express the comoving derivatives $\dot\alpha$, $\dot\beta$ in terms of hydrodynamic variables, and the iterative moment method of Ref. [76]—substitute local equilibrium, take first-order gradients, then re-substitute the first-order correction into the non-hydrodynamic moments—produces the closed second-order equations while dropping terms of third order and higher.

What would settle it

Evaluate the transport-coefficient formulas in Appendix B for the massless limit (vanishing quasiparticle masses and bag term) at finite chemical potential and compare the predicted ratios of second-order coefficients, such as $\tau_{\pi}/\eta$ and $\lambda_{\pi\pi}/(\eta\,\tau_{\rm eq})$, with the exact values obtained from an independent kinetic-theory solution of the same relaxation-time system; any mismatch would show the derivation is internally inconsistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Wigner-formalism-based quasiparticle picture can be extended to finite baryon chemical potential without breaking thermodynamic consistency: the equilibrium equation of state is matched by two medium-dependent quasiparticle masses $m(\alpha,\beta)$ and $M(\alpha,\beta)$ together with a bag term $B_0(\alpha,\beta)$, and the out-of-equilibrium part of the bag tensor, $\delta B^{\mu\nu}$, is fixed by the four conservation equations and drops out of the second-order equations altogether. The closed evolution equations for the shear stress $\pi^{\langle\mu\nu\rangle}$, the bulk pressure $\Pi$, and the baryon diffusion current $\nu^\mu$ are Eqs. (131), (132), and (120), with all transport coefficients collected in Appendix B as explicit functions of thermodynamic integrals over the equilibrium exponential distributions. These coefficients are not free parameters: once an equation of state is chosen, they are determined up to the relaxation time $\tau_{\rm eq}$ and the constants $g$, $g_q$, and $q$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a single relaxation time describes all collisions—one common relaxation time for charged and uncharged quasiparticles and for every momentum mode—so that, because every transport coefficient scales with that one time, the quantitative content of the derived equations is not controlled if the real scattering dynamics departs from this description.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy-ion simulations of baryon-rich matter can adopt the derived equations, Eqs. (120), (131), and (132), together with the Appendix B coefficients, to evolve the diffusion current, shear stress, and bulk pressure from a lattice-calibrated equation of state.
  • The first-order coefficients $\eta$, $\zeta$, and $\kappa_b$ are each proportional to the single relaxation time $\tau_{\rm eq}$; their ratios to one another are therefore parameter-free predictions of the quasiparticle model at finite chemical potential.
  • The bag correction $\delta B^{\mu\nu}$ is at least second order in gradients and deviations from equilibrium, so the second-order dissipative dynamics is entirely kinetic: the transport coefficients depend on the equation of state only through the thermodynamic integrals and the mass derivatives.
  • In the limit of vanishing chemical potential and a single neutral species, the equations reduce to the previous result of Ref. [71], giving a built-in consistency check of the finite-$\mu$ generalization.
  • The derivation is modular: replacing the exponential equilibrium distributions with Bose/Fermi forms, or assigning separate relaxation times to the charged and neutral species, changes only the transport-coefficient integrals, not the structure of the closed system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical test is now within reach: evaluate the Appendix B formulas for a lattice-calibrated equation of state and compare the temperature dependence of $\zeta/s$ and $\kappa_b/s$ at finite $\mu$ with results from other approaches, such as holography or transport simulations; the paper itself does not perform this comparison.
  • The single common relaxation time is the fragile point; assigning separate relaxation times for charged and neutral quasiparticles would probe how strongly the coefficient ratios, such as $\tau_{\pi\pi}/\eta$ and $\lambda_{\pi\Pi}/\zeta$, depend on this choice.
  • Because the out-of-equilibrium bag tensor is argued to be purely third-order, the model implicitly claims that the dominant dissipative effects at second order are captured by the quasiparticle kinetic sector; a test would be to construct an explicit strong-gradient solution and check the size of the neglected $\delta B^{\mu\nu}$ terms.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript extends the quasiparticle-plus-bag derivation of second-order relativistic viscous hydrodynamics to a system with a conserved baryon current and finite chemical potential. The authors start from a Wigner-function-based kinetic description with on-shell charged and uncharged quasiparticles having medium-dependent masses, add a bag-like tensor to maintain thermodynamic consistency, and derive evolution equations for the diffusion current, shear stress, and bulk pressure. The final equations (120)-(121), (131), and (132), together with the transport coefficients in Appendix B, constitute the claimed closed set of second-order equations. The paper also discusses the connection to quantum field theory, the Gibbs-Duhem constraints on the masses and bag term, and the reduction of the framework to previous work at zero chemical potential.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper provides a useful and nontrivial extension of Ref. [71] to finite baryon chemical potential: it gives explicit, equation-of-state-dependent formulas for the second-order transport coefficients in the diffusion, shear, and bulk sectors within a relaxation-time approximation. The thermodynamic-consistency machinery embodied in Eqs. (74)-(76) is clearly laid out, and the authors are transparent about the model assumptions, including the on-shell ansatz, the Juttner equilibrium distributions, and the bag degree of freedom. The coefficients are not fitted to data but are derived predictions of the model, which is a strength. The main value of the paper, if the algebraic issues are resolved, is as a reference framework for phenomenological simulations at finite baryon density; the substantial algebraic complexity makes independent verification of the final coefficients important.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV and Sec. V.C, Eqs. (80), (82), (123)-(125), (132)] The treatment of the nonequilibrium bag term is not a consistent second-order truncation. With the decomposition (81), the trace of delta B contributes -b0 to the physical bulk pressure, so the expression for Pi in Eq. (80) is missing this contribution unless delta B = 0. Moreover, Eq. (82) implies that b0/tau_eq is second order: with b^mu first order in the Landau frame, the right-hand side of the first of Eqs. (82) is second order in the standard gradient/inverse-Reynolds counting. Therefore the term +(1/tau_eq)b0 Delta^{mu nu} in Eq. (123) is a genuine second-order term, and dropping it in the passage to Eq. (124) is not justified by the statement that delta B contributes only at third order. Because the other retained second-order terms in Eq. (125) are of the same type, this deletion is not a harmless higher-order correction. The resulting bulk equation (132) and the coefficients in Appendix B omit contributions that the derivation itself generates. Please retain b0 through Eq. (125) and in Eq. (80), or demonstrate explicitly that the b0 contributions cancel at second order.
  2. [Appendix B and Sec. V] No limiting or numerical checks of the transport coefficients are presented. At least the mu = 0 limit should reduce to the zero-chemical-potential results of Ref. [71], and the q = 0 or single-species limit should reproduce known relaxation-time-approximation second-order coefficients; neither reduction is shown. Because the central deliverable of the paper is the coefficient set in Appendix B, the authors should verify these limits and, if feasible, provide a numerical evaluation for a concrete equation of state at finite chemical potential. Such checks would also help detect algebraic errors in the bulky formulas (B1)-(B18).
  3. [Sec. II, Eqs. (45) and (50)] The single-relaxation-time kernel with one common tau_eq for charged and uncharged quasiparticles and for all momentum modes is a strong modeling assumption, and all first-order transport coefficients in Eqs. (106), (126)-(128) are proportional to tau_eq. The quantitative content of the derived second-order equations is therefore controlled by this kernel. The paper does not discuss the expected sensitivity of the results to replacing this kernel by a more realistic collision term. Please add at least a discussion of this sensitivity and state which conclusions are robust to the choice of the relaxation kernel.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (67)] The text preceding Eq. (67) says "E0 + E0 = Eeq + Peq"; this should read "E0 + P0 = Eeq + Peq."
  2. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (95)] In the last line of Eq. (95), the second square bracket is multiplied by ˙alpha, but from the context it should be multiplied by ˙beta.
  3. [Throughout] The name "Jutner" should be spelled "Jüttner."
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (82)] The statement after Eq. (82) that delta B is "at least second-order itself" is inconsistent with the order of b0/tau_eq derived from the same equation; this should be clarified and reconciled with the truncation used in Sec. V.C.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the second-order equations and transport coefficients are explicit functionals of the input equation of state and relaxation time; the δB truncation issue is a consistency concern, not a circular one.

full rationale

The derivation's load-bearing outputs are Eqs. (120), (131), (132) and the transport coefficients in Appendix B. These are obtained by inserting first-order δf± and δf solutions of the RTA equations into the moment equations; every coefficient is an explicit integral over equilibrium distributions, effective masses and their derivatives, multiplied by the input τeq. No coefficient is fitted to the quantity it is used to evolve, and the quasiparticle masses and bag are fixed by matching an external equation of state (Eqs. (66)-(67)), which is an input rather than an output of the derivation. The single-relaxation-time approximation is a stated physical assumption, not a hidden circularity. Self-citations are present, notably Ref. [71] for the bag ansatz and Ref. [75] for the moment equation (97), but the essential bag dynamics are re-derived in Eqs. (78)-(82), and the coefficient formulas are worked out explicitly in the text rather than imported as a conclusion. I therefore find no step in which a claimed prediction reduces by construction to its input. The notable textual issue is the statement after Eq. (82) that δBμν contributes only at third order: Eq. (123) contains an explicit +(1/τeq)b0Δμν term that is dropped on the way to Eq. (124), and if b0 is second order, then (1/τeq)b0 is second order, not third order. That is a likely truncation-consistency defect, but it is not circularity; it is flagged here for completeness and does not by itself raise the circularity score beyond the minor self-citation level.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The derivation rests on the quasiparticle-plus-bag modeling of QCD matter, the relaxation-time approximation, and grand-canonical thermodynamics. The only adjustable constants are the relaxation time and degeneracy or charge factors; masses and bag are fixed by equation-of-state matching. No independent evidence is provided for the quasiparticle or bag degrees of freedom.

free parameters (2)
  • Relaxation time tau_eq = not specified
    Single common relaxation time in the RTA collision kernel; eta, zeta, kappa_b and all second-order coefficients scale with it. It is not predicted by the model.
  • Degeneracy factors g and g_q and charge q = not specified
    Constants in the momentum integrals, Eq. (53), constrained only by positivity and invertibility in Eqs. (66)-(67). They affect the effective mass functions and therefore the transport coefficients.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Grand-canonical equilibrium with standard Gibbs-Duhem thermodynamics, Eq. (55) and Eq. (68).
    Used to define local equilibrium, effective temperature and chemical potential, and to derive the bag relation Eqs. (74)-(76).
  • domain assumption On-shell Wigner quasiparticle representation with medium-dependent masses, Eq. (41), and the kinetic equations (45) and (50).
    The entire derivation relies on this microscopic modeling assumption. The paper argues flexibility but does not prove it follows from QCD.
  • domain assumption Single relaxation time tau_eq for all species and all momentum modes.
    The collision kernel is replaced by (p.u)/tau_eq times the deviation from equilibrium. All transport coefficients inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption Juettner (classical Boltzmann) equilibrium distributions for quasiparticles, Eq. (60).
    Charged, anti-charged, and neutral quasiparticles are given exponential equilibrium forms. The paper notes alternatives are possible but does not pursue them.
  • domain assumption The second-order expansion prescription of Ref. [76] is accurate.
    The paper states this method has been accurate in cases with exact solutions, but acknowledges it cannot be confirmed here.
  • domain assumption The non-equilibrium bag delta-B contributes only at third order and can be dropped at second order.
    Used to simplify Eqs. (82)-(92). If delta-B contributed at second order, the final equations would change.
invented entities (2)
  • Charged and uncharged on-shell quasiparticles with medium-dependent masses M(alpha,beta) and m(alpha,beta)
    purpose: Effective degrees of freedom that reproduce the equilibrium energy density, pressure, and baryon density of a realistic equation of state.
    The paper explicitly says these quasiparticles cannot correspond to known particles. They are weights for momentum integrals, not independently observed excitations.
  • Bag-like tensor B^{mu nu} with equilibrium value B0 and non-equilibrium components b0, b^mu
    purpose: Ensures thermodynamic consistency and local energy-momentum conservation when medium-dependent masses are used; also allows a nonzero bulk pressure correction.
    This is not a physical field. It is chosen as a rank-two tensor with four additional degrees of freedom, Eq. (81), to satisfy conservation. No independent observable signature is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiparticle second-order dissipative hydrodynamics at finite chemical potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMVJYL7H

@misc{pith2026241206024,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiparticle second-order dissipative hydrodynamics at finite chemical potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMVJYL7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06024}
}
read the original abstract

We extend the derivation of second-order relativistic viscous hydrodynamics to incorporate the effects of baryon current, a non-vanishing chemical potential, and a realistic equation of state. Starting from a microscopic quantum theory, we employ a quasiparticle approximation to describe the evolution of hydrodynamic degrees of freedom and establish its connection to the Wigner formalism. Using methods from relativistic kinetic theory, we perform a second-order expansion to derive a closed set of equations for the components of the stress-energy tensor and the baryon current. The resulting transport coefficients, which depend on the equation of state, are obtained through a unified prescription that ensures thermodynamic consistency.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [71]

    Quasiparticle second-order viscous hydrodynamics from kinetic theory

    L. Tinti, A. Jaiswal, and R. Ryblewski, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054007 (2017), arXiv:1612.07329 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Busza, K

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

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Huovinen and P

    P. Huovinen and P. V. Ruuskanen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci . 56, 163 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0605008

    arXiv 2006

  4. [3]

    Romatschke, Int

    P. Romatschke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 19, 1 (2010), arXiv:0902.3663 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Derradi de Souza, T

    R. Derradi de Souza, T. Koide, and T. Kodama, Prog. Part. N ucl. Phys. 86, 35 (2016), arXiv:1506.03863 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [7]

    Jaiswal and V

    A. Jaiswal and V. Roy, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016, 9623034 (2016), arXiv:1605.08694 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    J. L. Francesco Becattini and M. Lisa, eds., Strongly Interacting Matter under Rotation , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer,

  2. [9]

    Shuryak, Prog

    E. Shuryak, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 53, 273 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312227

    2004 arXiv

  3. [10]

    U. W. Heinz and P. F. Kolb, Nucl. Phys. A 702, 269 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0111075

    2002 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Danielewicz and M

    P. Danielewicz and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 31, 53 (1985)

    1985

  5. [12]

    Policastro, D

    G. Policastro, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 081601 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0104066

    2001 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett . 94, 111601 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0405231

    2005 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Muronga, Phys

    A. Muronga, Phys. Rev. C 69, 034903 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0309055

    2004 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Baier, P

    R. Baier, P. Romatschke, and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. C 73, 064903 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602249

    2006 arXiv

  9. [16]

    M. A. York and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D 79, 054011 (2009), arXiv:0811.0729 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A. El, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 81, 041901 (2010), arXiv:0907.4500 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [18]

    G. S. Denicol, T. Koide, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. Let t. 105, 162501 (2010), arXiv:1004.5013 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Molnar, and D. H. Rischke, Phy s. Rev. D 85, 114047 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 039902 (2015)], arXiv:1202.4551 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [20]

    G. S. Denicol, E. Molnár, H. Niemi, and D. H. Rischke, Eur . Phys. J. A 48, 170 (2012), arXiv:1206.1554 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Jaiswal, R

    A. Jaiswal, R. S. Bhalerao, and S. Pal, Phys. Lett. B 720, 347 (2013), arXiv:1204.3779 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    R. S. Bhalerao, A. Jaiswal, S. Pal, and V. Sreekanth, Phy s. Rev. C 88, 044911 (2013), arXiv:1305.4146 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    G. S. Rocha, D. Wagner, G. S. Denicol, J. Noronha, and D. H . Rischke, (2023), 10.3390/e26030189, arXiv:2311.15063 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172301 (2007), arXiv:0706.1522 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bozek, Phys

    P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 81, 034909 (2010), arXiv:0911.2397 [nucl-th]. 29

    2010 arXiv

  19. [26]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. Heinz, T. Hirano, and C. Shen, Phys . Rev. Lett. 106, 192301 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 109, 139904 (2012)], arXiv:1011.2783 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [27]

    B. H. Alver, C. Gombeaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault , Phys. Rev. C 82, 034913 (2010), arXiv:1007.5469 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024901 (2012), arXiv:1109.6289 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [29]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopa lan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 012302 (2013), arXiv:1209.6330 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Noronha-Hostler, G

    J. Noronha-Hostler, G. S. Denicol, J. Noronha, R. P. G. A ndrade, and F. Grassi, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044916 (2013), arXiv:1305.1981 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [31]

    F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, M. Luzum, and F. Grass i, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034902 (2015), arXiv:1411.2574 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [32]

    S. Ryu, J. F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, B. Schenke, S . Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 132301 (2015), arXiv:1502.01675 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Niemi, K

    H. Niemi, K. J. Eskola, and R. Paatelainen, Phys. Rev. C 93, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1505.02677 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Florkowski, A

    W. Florkowski, A. Kumar, and R. Ryblewski, Prog. Part. N ucl. Phys. 108, 103709 (2019), arXiv:1811.04409 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Becattini, A

    F. Becattini, A. Daher, and X.-L. Sheng, Phys. Lett. B 850, 138533 (2024), arXiv:2309.05789 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Huang, (2024), arXiv:2411.11753 [nucl-th]

    X.-G. Huang, (2024), arXiv:2411.11753 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Eckart, Phys

    C. Eckart, Phys. Rev. 58, 267 (1940)

    1940

  31. [38]

    Hiscock and L

    W. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Annals Phys. 151, 466 (1983)

    1983

  32. [39]

    Denicol, T

    G. Denicol, T. Kodama, T. Koide, and P. Mota, J. Phys. G 35, 115102 (2008), arXiv:0807.3120 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Israel, Annals Phys

    W. Israel, Annals Phys. 100, 310 (1976)

    1976

  34. [41]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. Stewart, Annals Phys. 118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  35. [42]

    Van and T

    P. Van and T. S. Biro, Eur. Phys. J. ST 155, 201 (2008), arXiv:0704.2039 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [43]

    S. Pu, T. Koide, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114039 (2010), arXiv:0907.3906 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [44]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104064 (2018), arXiv:1708.06255 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Kovtun, JHEP 10, 034 (2019), arXiv:1907.08191 [hep-th]

    P. Kovtun, JHEP 10, 034 (2019), arXiv:1907.08191 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Abbasi, A

    N. Abbasi, A. Davody, and S. Tahery, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036006 (2024), arXiv:2212.14619 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Weickgenannt, D

    N. Weickgenannt, D. Wagner, E. Speranza, and D. H. Risch ke, Phys. Rev. D 106, 096014 (2022), arXiv:2203.04766 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Biswas, A

    R. Biswas, A. Daher, A. Das, W. Florkowski, and R. Ryblew ski, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014024 (2023), arXiv:2304.01009 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Tiwari and B

    A. Tiwari and B. K. Patra, (2024), arXiv:2408.11514 [he p-th]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [50]

    She, Y.-W

    D. She, Y.-W. Qiu, and D. Hou, (2024), arXiv:2410.15142 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Daher, A

    A. Daher, A. Das, and R. Ryblewski, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054043 (2023), arXiv:2209.10460 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [52]

    X. Ren, C. Yang, D.-L. Wang, and S. Pu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034010 (2024), arXiv:2405.03105 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, (2009), arXiv:0908.3341 [hep-p h]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Phys. Rev. D 80, 014504 (2009), arXiv:0903.4379 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Borsanyi, G

    S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz , S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 11, 077 (2010), arXiv:1007.2580 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D 90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg , and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B 730, 99 (2014), arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Florkowski, R

    W. Florkowski, R. Ryblewski, and M. Strickland, Nucl. P hys. A 916, 249 (2013), arXiv:1304.0665 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Florkowski, R

    W. Florkowski, R. Ryblewski, and M. Strickland, Phys. R ev. C 88, 024903 (2013), arXiv:1305.7234 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Florkowski, E

    W. Florkowski, E. Maksymiuk, R. Ryblewski, and M. Stric kland, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054908 (2014), arXiv:1402.7348 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Jaiswal, R

    A. Jaiswal, R. Ryblewski, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. C 90, 044908 (2014), arXiv:1407.7231 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [62]

    G. S. Denicol, W. Florkowski, R. Ryblewski, and M. Stric kland, Phys. Rev. C 90, 044905 (2014), arXiv:1407.4767 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [63]

    H. B. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 76, 101701 (2007), arXiv:0704.1801 [hep-lat]

    2007 arXiv

  57. [64]

    H. B. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 162001 (2008), arXiv:0710.3717 [hep-lat]

    2008 arXiv

  58. [65]

    M. I. Gorenstein and S.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5206 (1995)

    1995

  59. [66]

    Romatschke, Phys

    P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. D 85, 065012 (2012), arXiv:1108.5561 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Sasaki and K

    C. Sasaki and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C 79, 055207 (2009), arXiv:0806.4745 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Bluhm, B

    M. Bluhm, B. Kampfer, and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C 84, 025201 (2011), arXiv:1011.5634 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [69]

    S. R. D. Groot, Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications (Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-holland ( 1980) 417p, 1980)

    1980

  63. [70]

    Tinti, Phys

    L. Tinti, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076022 (2023), arXiv:2304.00109 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of integrals, series, and products , seventh ed. (Elsevier/Academic Press, Amster- dam, 2007) pp. xlviii+1171, translated from the Russian, Tr anslation edited and with a preface by Alan Jeffrey and Daniel Zwillinger, With one CD-ROM (Wi...

    2007

  65. [73]

    Jaiswal, Phys

    A. Jaiswal, Phys. Rev. D 109, L081301 (2024), arXiv:2308.03389 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and A. Palermo, JHEP 02, 101 (2021), arXiv:2007.08249 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Tinti, G

    L. Tinti, G. Vujanovic, J. Noronha, and U. Heinz, Phys. R ev. D 99, 016009 (2019), arXiv:1808.06436 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Jaiswal, Phys

    A. Jaiswal, Phys. Rev. C 87, 051901 (2013), arXiv:1302.6311 [nucl-th]. 30

    2013 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Debbasch and W

    F. Debbasch and W. van Leeuwen, Physica A: Statistical M echanics and its Applications 388, 1079 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.