The First fm/c of Heavy-Ion Collisions

Derek Teaney; Soeren Schlichting

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 9 cited by

The First fm/c of Heavy-Ion Collisions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weak-coupling QCD kinetic theory puts the first fm/c of a heavy-ion collision within quantitative reach.

desk verdict A well-executed review of weak-coupling early-time dynamics whose headline hydrodynamization time is solid as a synthesis but carries an unstated LO-to-realistic-coupling uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02113 v1 pith:YX5BP24H submitted 2019-08-06 nucl-th hep-phhep-th

Soeren Schlichting , Derek Teaney This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thhep-phhep-th PACS 25.75.-q12.38.Mh

keywords heavy-ioncollisionsquark-gluonplasmaQCDkinetictheorythermalizationbottom-upscenariohydrodynamizationpre-equilibriumdynamicscolor-glasscondensate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review argues that the first fm/c of a heavy-ion collision—the stretch of time before a quark-gluon plasma becomes a fluid—can be described from first principles by weakly coupled QCD kinetic theory. The bottom-up thermalization picture, which began as parametric estimates, is now realized in numerical simulations that start from Color-Glass-Condensate initial conditions and evolve the full energy-momentum tensor through overoccupied and underoccupied stages. The quantitative payoff is a hydrodynamization time for central lead-lead collisions, $\tau_{\mathrm{hydro}} \approx 1.1$ fm, with the dependence on shear viscosity and multiplicity given in closed form. If the picture is right, the pre-equilibrium phase is not a free parameter but a calculable bridge from the initial state to the hydrodynamic initial conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bottom-up thermalization scenario, the three-stage weak-coupling mechanism by which a highly anisotropic, overoccupied gluon plasma relaxes: momentum diffusion and longitudinal expansion compete in the first stage, radiation populates a soft bath in the second, and an inverse energy cascade transfers energy from hard to soft modes in the third. The quantitative machinery is the leading-order QCD Boltzmann equation with $2\leftrightarrow 2$ elastic scattering and $1\leftrightarrow 2$ LPM-suppressed collinear radiation, solved numerically in the expanding boost-invariant geometry. The account is carried by a chain of parametric and numerical results: the non-thermal fixed point with scaling exponents $\alpha = -4/7$ and $\beta = -1/7$ for overoccupied plasmas; the turbulent inverse-cascade spectrum with spectral index $\kappa = 7/2$ for the underoccupied cascade; and the criterion that hydrodynamics applies once the proper time is of order the equilibrium relaxation time, $\tau_{\mathrm{hydro}} \approx \tau_R^{\mathrm{eq}}$.

What would settle it

Take the strongest form: start an expanding, anisotropic SU(3) plasma at $\lambda\approx10$ from the same CGC-motivated initial condition and evolve it with a method that includes plasma instabilities, such as classical-statistical field theory at early times; if the normalized pressure components $P_L/e$ and $P_T/e$ deviate from the kinetic-theory curves in the review's Fig. 5(a) by more than the expected viscous-hydro spread at $\tau/\tau_R^{\mathrm{eq}} \approx 1$, then eq. (81) and the claimed hydrodynamization time are not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim is that weak-coupling QCD kinetic theory quantitatively describes the first fm/c of a heavy-ion collision, making viscous hydrodynamics applicable by the time quoted in eq. (81): $\tau_{\mathrm{hydro}} \approx 1.1$ fm $\left(4\pi(\eta/s)/2\right)^{3/2} \left(\langle\tau s\rangle/(4.1~\mathrm{GeV}^2)\right)^{-1/2} \left(\nu_{\mathrm{eff}}/40\right)^{1/2}$. The same framework converts the original bottom-up scenario into a three-stage sequence—an overoccupied gluon plasma that first becomes more anisotropic, a phase in which a soft thermal bath builds up through LPM-suppressed radiation, and a final inverse energy cascade that transfers energy from hard modes to the bath. Numerical solutions of the leading-order QCD Boltzmann equation with elastic and inelastic processes reproduce this sequence and show that the energy-momentum tensor approaches the hydrodynamic asymptotic behavior even while the pressure anisotropy remains of order one. The paper packages the result as a pre-flow linear-response kernel that connects classical-field initial conditions, kinetic theory, and hydrodynamic initial conditions in event-by-event simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that kinetic-theory results computed at weak coupling remain quantitatively valid when the coupling is extrapolated to realistic values ($\lambda\approx10$–$25$, i.e. $\eta/s\approx0.62$–$0.16$) and that plasma instabilities do not change the bottom-up dynamics; the paper itself flags both as unproven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hydrodynamic initial conditions become calculable: eq. (81) fixes when and how the pre-equilibrium $T^{\mu\nu}$ is matched to viscous hydrodynamics for large collision systems.
Hydrodynamization precedes local equilibrium: the fluid equations become reliable while the longitudinal and transverse pressures still differ by an order-one amount, so the success of hydrodynamics does not imply rapid isotropization.
Pre-equilibrium production is quantified: the kinetic-theory evolution generates a factor of roughly two to three in entropy before hydrodynamics, which directly links initial-state models to measured charged-particle multiplicities.
Event-by-event pre-flow can be computed: the linear response in eq. (82) gives the pre-equilibrium buildup of transverse flow from initial geometry fluctuations, replacing ad hoc hydrodynamic initialization.
Small systems have a concrete threshold: using eq. (84), hydrodynamics becomes marginal when the charged-particle multiplicity per unit rapidity is of order $dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/dy \approx 70$, giving a target for small-system flow studies.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: if eq. (81) survives contact with data, the same kinetic-theory machinery should determine the pre-equilibrium electromagnetic emissivity (photons and dileptons) once the quark sector is treated at full leading order; the review notes that complete calculation is still missing.
Editorial extension: the multiplicity threshold $dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/dy \approx 70$ is a sharp, falsifiable bookmark: flow-like correlations in small collision systems should turn off near that value if the weak-coupling picture is the whole story, whereas a much lower threshold would suggest strong-coupling or non-kinetic mechanisms.
Editorial extension: because the review brackets plasma instabilities as an open issue, a direct test would be to compare the kinetic-theory pressure curves with classical-statistical simulations of expanding anisotropic plasmas at $\lambda \approx 10$ that include instabilities; the two should agree at the 10–20% level at $\tau/\tau_R^{\mathrm{eq}} \sim 1$ if the extrapolation is safe.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a competent, honest review, not a research paper. If you need a single accessible account of the weak-coupling bottom-up program with the modern kinetic-theory numbers, this is the go-to reference. The catch is that its headline number — τhydro ≈ 1.1 fm, eq. (81) — inherits an unquantified extrapolation from leading-order kinetic theory at λ=10–25 to realistic coupling, and the paper says so but never tells you how uncertain the number is.

What is genuinely good: the review organizes the material better than the original papers. The Fokker-Planck and LPM rate discussion in Sec. 3 is clear and internally consistent. The distinction between overoccupied and underoccupied systems, with the scaling exponents α=-4/7 and β=-1/7 and the bottom-up time Qsτ∼α_s^-13/5, is presented accurately and tied to the right sources. Section 5.3's description of pre-flow response functions is a genuinely useful package for phenomenology. The paper also flags its own limitations: Sec. 5.1 concedes the extrapolation to sizeable coupling, and Sec. 4.3 says plasma instabilities are not fully clarified. That honesty is real, not cosmetic.

Where I part company with the reader's report only slightly: the stress-test note is right, and the reader's soundness=8 is fair but maybe generous for the quantitative claim. Fig. 5's apparent coupling independence does not test the absolute relaxation rate, because time is scaled by the theory's own τR^eq=4πη/s/T_Id. That scaling removes the normalization issue. An O(1) error in the LO rate changes eq. (81) by (2)^{3/2}≈2.8, moving τhydro from ~1 fm to ~3 fm and shifting the small-system threshold in eq. (84). The review acknowledges the need for extrapolation but gives no error bar. For a review that is not fatal, but it should be said explicitly, and the paper should add a sentence or two quantifying this.

The self-citation point is a non-issue here. Several anchors come from overlapping-author papers, but this is a review by people who did much of the work; the underlying simulations are published and separately checkable. I would not downgrade for that.

Bottom line: for a graduate student or a phenomenologist wanting the state of the weak-coupling early-time program, this paper is worth reading. It is not original research, and the central number needs a caveat. A serious referee should engage with it; the right outcome is acceptance after minor revision, with the uncertainty on eq. (81) made explicit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is an invited review of the weak-coupling description of the earliest stage of ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions. After a concise introduction to the CGC initial state and the BMSS bottom-up scenario, the authors review the elements of leading-order QCD kinetic theory (elastic scattering, Fokker-Planck transport coefficients, collinear radiation with LPM suppression), derive the scaling exponents for overoccupied and underoccupied plasmas, and summarize numerical simulations of the approach to hydrodynamics. The review concludes with quantitative estimates for the hydrodynamization time tau_hydro ~ 1.1 fm (Eq. 81), for pre-flow response functions (Eqs. 82-83), and for the small-system onset of hydrodynamics (Eq. 84).

Significance. The review is valuable as a pedagogical and critical synthesis. It correctly identifies the universal scaling results (alpha = -4/7, beta = -1/7; Q_s tau ~ alpha_s^(-13/5)) and presents them with transparent derivations that a reader can follow. The combination of parametric estimates, kinetic-theory simulations, and phenomenological constraints in one place will be useful to the community. The most important caveat is that the quantitative bridge to phenomenology is built on leading-order kinetic theory at couplings where the expansion is not controlled; this caveat is acknowledged in places but not quantified in the central formulas.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.1, Eq. (81), Fig. 5(a)] The hydrodynamization time in Eq. (81) and the small-system threshold in Eq. (84) are load-bearing quantitative claims, but the manuscript does not provide an uncertainty estimate for the extrapolation from leading-order kinetic theory at lambda = 10-25 to the couplings relevant to Pb+Pb. Rescaling time by tau_R^eq = 4 pi eta/s / T_Id in Fig. 5(a) removes the coupling dependence of the overall normalization and therefore does not test the absolute value of tau_R^eq. Because the same LO rate enters the translation from lambda to eta/s, an O(1) error in the rate changes Eq. (81) by a factor (2)^(3/2) and shifts Eq. (84) by the corresponding amount. The authors should either supply a quantitative systematic-error estimate for Eqs. (81) and (84) or state explicitly that these are parametric, order-of-magnitude estimates.
[Sections 4.3 and 5.1] The quantitative statements in Section 5.1 and Section 5.3 assume that plasma instabilities do not qualitatively modify the bottom-up evolution, but Section 4.3 states that the role of instabilities in underoccupied systems "has not been fully clarified" and that current kinetic theory implementations ignore them. Since Eq. (81) and the pre-flow response functions of Eq. (82) inherit this assumption, the review should either quantify the expected sensitivity of tau_hydro to instabilities, for instance through the modified exponents of Ref. 63, or carry a prominent caveat in Section 5.1. As written, the main quantitative claims are stronger than the stated theoretical basis.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The phrase "a brief expose" should be "a brief exposé".
[Section 1] The word "mircoseconds" in the introductory paragraph is a typo for "microseconds".
[Section 4.3] The text "produced by direction radiation by the bath" should read "produced by direct radiation from the bath".
[Section 4.2.2, discussion after Eq. (66)] The sentence containing "an be transformed" should read "can be transformed".
[Section 4.3] The equation for e_soft(tau) in the second phase is again numbered (58), and the equation for e_soft(tau) in the final phase is again numbered (64), duplicating the numbers already used in Section 4.2; these should be renumbered or cited with reference to the original equations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's quantitative results are cited from external kinetic-theory simulations, not fitted here, and its scaling identification is an extracted comparison, not a definitional equality.

full rationale

This is a review article, and its claimed derivation chain runs from CGC initial conditions, through leading-order QCD effective kinetic theory, to a hydrodynamization time. I find no step where a prediction is defined in terms of its own output, no fitted parameter that is renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing argument that reduces to an unverified self-citation. Equation (81) is presented as the result of numerical kinetic-theory simulations from refs. (30, 71, 72); it is not fitted to the data it is used to interpret. The only external quantitative input, the entropy density per rapidity ⟨τs⟩ ≈ 4.1 GeV², is taken from measured charged-particle multiplicities, which is an input rather than an output of the derivation. The scaling time τ_R^eq = 4πη/s/T_Id in eq. (80) is a theoretically computed relaxation scale; the statement that viscous hydrodynamics becomes applicable when τ ≈ τ_R^eq is a comparison extracted from the simulations, not an equality imposed by definition. The self-citations to the authors' own kinetic-theory papers are present, but they cite externally published simulation results that can be checked against the literature, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The paper explicitly acknowledges its own limitations in Sec. 4.3 (plasma instabilities 'have not been fully clarified') and Sec. 5.1 ('an extrapolation to sizeable coupling strength is required'); these are correctness and uncertainty concerns about leading-order weak-coupling extrapolation, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no central quantitative claim is statistically forced by a fit performed in the review.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review's conclusions rely on established QCD kinetic theory and on simplifying assumptions, including homogeneity, omission of plasma instabilities, and weak-to-realistic coupling extrapolation, which the authors explicitly acknowledge. No new free parameters are fitted in this paper; numerical constants in the hydrodynamization estimates are inherited from cited simulations.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Leading-order QCD kinetic theory with 2-to-2 and collinear 1-to-2 processes (Boltzmann equation, Eq. 8) describes the non-equilibrium plasma.
Adopted from Arnold-Moore-Yaffe and Baier et al.; the whole quantitative framework depends on this kinetic description.
domain assumption The initial gluon state after the collision is highly occupied and classical, described by the Color Glass Condensate with Qs much larger than Lambda_QCD.
Section 2.1; justifies classical Yang-Mills initial conditions and weak-coupling methods.
domain assumption The system is approximately boost invariant and homogeneous in transverse space and rapidity for most of the review.
Section 2; stated assumption underlying the simplest bottom-up estimates and local equilibration.
domain assumption Plasma instabilities can be neglected because non-abelian nonlinearities limit their growth.
Section 4.3; the authors explicitly note this remains an open question and proceed with the assumption.
domain assumption Weak-coupling parametric results extrapolate to realistic couplings lambda about 10 to 25.
Section 5.1; needed to convert kinetic simulations into the tau_hydro approximately 1.1 fm estimate.
domain assumption Screening and scattering in the plasma are described by a single isotropic HTL mass m^2 and a Wightman self-energy (Eqs. 9, 13-14).
Section 3; this simplification underlies the Fokker-Planck and LPM rates used throughout.
standard math Energy transport in the inertial range follows Kolmogorov-Zakharov weak-turbulence scaling with index kappa=7/2 (Eqs. 66-70).
Standard wave-turbulence stationarity; used to compute the energy flux from hard modes to the soft bath.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The First fm/c of Heavy-Ion Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YX5BP24H

@misc{pith2026190802113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The First fm/c of Heavy-Ion Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YX5BP24H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02113}
}

abstract

We present an introductory review of the early time dynamics of high-energy heavy-ion collisions and the kinetics of high temperature QCD. The equilibration mechanisms in the quark-gluon plasma uniquely reflect the non-abelian and ultra-relativistic character of the many body system. Starting with a brief expose of the key theoretical and experimental questions, we provide an overview of the theoretical tools employed in weak coupling studies of the early time non-equilibrium dynamics. We highlight theoretical progress in understanding different thermalization mechanisms in weakly coupled non-abelian plasmas, and discuss their relevance in describing the approach to local thermal equilibrium during the first ${\rm fm}/c$ of a heavy-ion collision. Some important connections to the phenomenology of heavy-ion collisions are also briefly discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

Jet broadening and radiation in the early anisotropic plasma in heavy-ion collisions
hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The full angle-dependent jet-medium collision kernel is extracted from QCD kinetic theory for the pre-equilibrium plasma, revealing strong early-time anisotropy and up to 300% error in the isotropic splitting rates us...
Attractors Without Scaling: Adiabatic Hydrodynamization With and Without Inelastic Scattering
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Including inelastic scattering in a simplified gluon kinetic theory speeds up hydrodynamization, and attractors appear through gapped eigenstates of an effective Hamiltonian even without pre-thermal scaling.
Non-perturbative quark production and transport in the evolving glasma: the WAGASHI event generator
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Schwinger pair production in the evolving glasma generates hundreds of quarks and antiquarks per unit rapidity in central Pb-Pb collisions, with momentum broadening and spin randomization before hydrodynamics begins.
An Equilibrating Parton Shower for Jet Quenching and Medium Response
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A parton shower derived from QCD effective kinetic theory reproduces the full linearized Boltzmann equation and generates jet wakes, Mach-cone-like structures, and two-particle correlations.
Attractodynamics in 0+1D
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Attractodynamics constructs a macroscopic closure around a nonthermal attractor; in the 0+1D BSY kinetic model, ideal and viscous truncations track the full kinetic evolution, with the viscous extension improving agre...
Azimuthal momentum isotropization in the Quark-Gluon Plasma thermalization
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

BEDA kinetic evolution washes out initial azimuthal anisotropies with higher harmonics relaxing faster and shifts the pT peak of vn upward, qualitatively matching small-system data.
Longitudinal Dynamics of Large and Small Systems from a 3D Bayesian Calibration of RHIC Top-energy Collision Data
nucl-ex 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A 3D Bayesian calibration of RHIC Au-Au and d-Au data constrains the longitudinal initial state and QGP viscosity, and its posterior predicts p-Au and 3He-Au flow measurements.
Towards compressed baryonic matter densities: D meson diffusion
nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Using relaxation-time kinetic theory with a chiral hadronic model, the authors estimate that D meson spatial diffusion in dense nuclear matter decreases rapidly in a dilute-gas regime and mildly in a degenerate-gas regime.
Effective theories for nuclei at high energies
hep-ph 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

This paper reviews the Color Glass Condensate effective theory, covering its foundations, its role in deep inelastic scattering, and its use in setting initial conditions for heavy-ion collisions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

[1]

Heinz U, Snellings R. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63:123 (2013)

2013
[2]

Dusling K, Li W, Schenke B. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E25:1630002 (2016)

2016
[3]

Nagle JL, Zajc WA. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68:211 (2018)

2018
[4]

Acta Phys

Heller MP. Acta Phys. Polon. B47:2581 (2016)

2016
[5]

JHEP 04:031 (2016)

Keegan L, et al. JHEP 04:031 (2016)

2016
[6]

Baier R, Mueller AH, Schiﬀ D, Son DT. Phys. Lett. B502:51 (2001)

2001
[7]

Bjorken JD. Phys. Rev. D27:140 (1983)

1983
[8]

Gelis F, Schenke B. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66:73 (2016)

2016

Show all 89 references

[9]

McLerran LD, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. D49:2233 (1994)

1994
[10]

Kovner A, McLerran LD, Weigert H. Phys. Rev. D52:3809 (1995)

1995
[11]

Kovner A, McLerran LD, Weigert H. Phys. Rev. D52:6231 (1995)

1995
[12]

Lappi T, McLerran L. Nucl. Phys. A772:200 (2006)

2006
[13]

Mazeliauskas A, Teaney D. Phys. Rev. C91:044902 (2015) www.annualreviews.org • The First fm/c of Heavy-Ion Collisions 29

2015
[14]

Iancu E, Venugopalan R. 2003. In In *Hwa, R.C. (ed.) et al.: Quark gluon plasma* 249-3363

2003
[15]

Gelis F, Iancu E, Jalilian-Marian J, Venugopalan R. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60:463 (2010)

2010
[16]

Krasnitz A, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84:4309 (2000)

2000
[17]

Krasnitz A, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86:1717 (2001)

2001
[18]

Epelbaum T, Gelis F. Phys. Rev. D88:085015 (2013)

2013
[19]

Romatschke P, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96:062302 (2006)

2006
[20]

Romatschke P, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. D74:045011 (2006)

2006
[21]

Berges J, Schlichting S. Phys. Rev. D87:014026 (2013)

2013
[22]

Schenke B, Tribedy P, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108:252301 (2012)

2012
[23]

Schenke B, Tribedy P, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. C86:034908 (2012)

2012
[24]

Mueller AH, Son DT. Phys. Lett. B582:279 (2004)

2004
[25]

Aarts G, Smit J. Nucl. Phys. B511:451 (1998)

1998
[26]

Jeon S. Phys. Rev. C72:014907 (2005)

2005
[27]

Berges J, Schlichting S, Sexty D. Phys. Rev. D86:074006 (2012)

2012
[28]

Berges J, Boguslavski K, Schlichting S, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. D89:074011 (2014)

2014
[29]

Greif M, et al. Phys. Rev. D96:091504 (2017)

2017
[30]

arXiv:1805.00961 [hep-ph] (2018)

Kurkela A, et al. arXiv:1805.00961 [hep-ph] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[31]

Arnold PB, Cantrell S, Xiao W. Phys. Rev. D81:045017 (2010)

2010
[32]

Blaizot JP, Iancu E, Mehtar-Tani Y. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111:052001 (2013)

2013
[33]

JHEP 01:030 (2003)

Arnold PB, Moore GD, Yaﬀe LG. JHEP 01:030 (2003)

2003
[34]

JHEP 05:051 (2003)

Arnold PB, Moore GD, Yaﬀe LG. JHEP 05:051 (2003)

2003
[35]

JHEP 03:179 (2018)

Ghiglieri J, Moore GD, Teaney D. JHEP 03:179 (2018)

2018
[36]

JHEP 12:044 (2011)

Kurkela A, Moore GD. JHEP 12:044 (2011)

2011
[37]

Blaizot JP, Iancu E. Phys. Rept. 359:355 (2002)

2002
[38]

Landau LD, Lifshits EM. vol. 5 of Course of theoretical physics . London, Pergamon Press; Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. (1958)

1958
[39]

Ghiglieri J, Teaney D. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24:1530013 (2015)

2015
[40]

JHEP 03:095 (2016)

Ghiglieri J, Moore GD, Teaney D. JHEP 03:095 (2016)

2016
[41]

Arnold PB. Phys. Rev. D79:065025 (2009)

2009
[42]

Arnold PB, Xiao W. Phys. Rev. D78:125008 (2008)

2008
[43]

Baier R, et al. Nucl. Phys. B483:291 (1997)

1997
[44]

JETP Lett

Zakharov BG. JETP Lett. 65:615 (1997)

1997
[45]

Gunion JF, Bertsch G. Phys. Rev. D25:746 (1982)

1982
[46]

Arnold PB, Dogan C. Phys. Rev. D78:065008 (2008)

2008
[47]

Blaizot JP, et al. Nucl. Phys. A873:68 (2012)

2012
[48]

Berges J, Boguslavski K, Schlichting S, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. D89:114007 (2014)

2014
[49]

Kurkela A, Lu E. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113:182301 (2014)

2014
[50]

Lecture Notes in Physics

Nazarenko S. Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2011)

2011
[51]

Kurkela A, Moore GD. Phys. Rev. D86:056008 (2012)

2012
[52]

Schlichting S. Phys. Rev. D86:065008 (2012)

2012
[53]

Abraao York MC, Kurkela A, Lu E, Moore GD. Phys. Rev. D89:074036 (2014)

2014
[54]

Berges J, Mace M, Schlichting S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118:192005 (2017)

2017
[55]

Mace M, Schlichting S, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. D93:074036 (2016)

2016
[56]

Boguslavski K, Kurkela A, Lappi T, Peuron J. Phys. Rev. D98:014006 (2018)

2018
[57]

Annals Phys

Blaizot JP, Mehtar-Tani Y. Annals Phys. 368:148 (2016)

2016
[58]

Springer Series in Nonlinear Dynamics

Zakharov V, L’vov V, Falkovich G. Springer Series in Nonlinear Dynamics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2012)

2012
[59]

JHEP 09:144 (2018)

Mehtar-Tani Y, Schlichting S. JHEP 09:144 (2018)

2018
[60]

Mrowczynski S. Phys. Lett. B314:118 (1993)

1993
[61]

Romatschke P, Strickland M. Phys. Rev. D68:036004 (2003)

2003
[62]

JHEP 08:002 (2003) 30 S

Arnold PB, Lenaghan J, Moore GD. JHEP 08:002 (2003) 30 S. Schlichting and D. Teaney

2003
[63]

JHEP 11:120 (2011)

Kurkela A, Moore GD. JHEP 11:120 (2011)

2011
[64]

JHEP 10:092 (2005)

Bodeker D. JHEP 10:092 (2005)

2005
[65]

Rebhan A, Romatschke P, Strickland M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94:102303 (2005)

2005
[66]

Arnold PB, Moore GD, Yaﬀe LG. Phys. Rev. D72:054003 (2005)

2005
[67]

Kurkela A, Zhu Y. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115:182301 (2015)

2015
[68]

Baym G. Phys. Lett. 138B:18 (1984)

1984
[69]

Xu Z, Greiner C. Phys. Rev. C71:064901 (2005)

2005
[70]

El A, Xu Z, Greiner C. Nucl. Phys. A806:287 (2008)

2008
[71]

JHEP 08:171 (2016)

Keegan L, Kurkela A, Mazeliauskas A, Teaney D. JHEP 08:171 (2016)

2016
[72]

arXiv:1805.01604 [hep-ph] (2018)

Kurkela A, et al. arXiv:1805.01604 [hep-ph] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[73]

Kurkela A, Mazeliauskas A arXiv:1811.03040 [hep-ph] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[74]

Kurkela A, Mazeliauskas A arXiv:1811.03068 [hep-ph] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[75]

Heller MP, Janik RA, Witaszczyk P. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108:201602 (2012)

2012
[76]

Florkowski W, Heller MP, Spalinski M. Rept. Prog. Phys. 81:046001 (2018)

2018
[77]

Romatschke P. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120:012301 (2018)

2018
[78]

Strickland M, Noronha J, Denicol G. Phys. Rev. D97:036020 (2018)

2018
[79]

Gelis F, Kajantie K, Lappi T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96:032304 (2006)

2006
[80]

JHEP 02:126 (2016)

Gelis F, Tanji N. JHEP 02:126 (2016)

2016
[81]

Mller N, Schlichting S, Sharma S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117:142301 (2016)

2016
[82]

Tanji N, Berges J. Phys. Rev. D97:034013 (2018)

2018
[83]

Berges J, Reygers K, Tanji N, Venugopalan R. Phys. Rev. C95:054904 (2017)

2017
[84]

Vredevoogd J, Pratt S. Phys. Rev. C79:044915 (2009)

2009
[85]

Loizides C. Nucl. Phys. A956:200 (2016)

2016
[86]

Borghini N, Feld S, Kersting N. Eur. Phys. J. C78:832 (2018)

2018
[87]

Kurkela A, Wiedemann UA, Wu B. Phys. Lett. B783:274 (2018)

2018
[88]

Yan L, Ollitrault JY. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112:082301 (2014)

2014
[89]

Mace M, Skokov VV, Tribedy P, Venugopalan R. Phys. Lett. B788:161 (2019) www.annualreviews.org • The First fm/c of Heavy-Ion Collisions 31

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Heinz U, Snellings R. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63:123 (2013)

2013

[2] [2]

Dusling K, Li W, Schenke B. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E25:1630002 (2016)

2016

[3] [3]

Nagle JL, Zajc WA. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68:211 (2018)

2018

[4] [4]

Acta Phys

Heller MP. Acta Phys. Polon. B47:2581 (2016)

2016

[5] [5]

JHEP 04:031 (2016)

Keegan L, et al. JHEP 04:031 (2016)

2016

[6] [6]

Baier R, Mueller AH, Schiﬀ D, Son DT. Phys. Lett. B502:51 (2001)

2001

[7] [7]

Bjorken JD. Phys. Rev. D27:140 (1983)

1983

[8] [8]

Gelis F, Schenke B. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66:73 (2016)

2016