Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Spectral Surgery in a Heat Bath: a finite-temperature guide to particle production for phenomenologists

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new cutting-rule framework reduces multiloop thermal self-energies to tree-level rates and shows that interference terms change particle production by order-one amounts.

desk verdict Solid two-loop-verified cutting rules for thermal production rates, but the arbitrary-loop-order generality is asserted, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14277 v1 pith:DIAX5WQR submitted 2025-07-18 hep-ph physics.plasm-ph

Nirmalya Brahma , Saniya Heeba , Hugo Schérer , Katelin Schutz This is my paper
classification hep-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords finite-temperaturefieldtheoryparticleproductionthermalself-energyinterferencetermscuttingrulesfreeze-indarkmatterimaginary-timeformalism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to give phenomenologists a practical way to compute particle production rates in a hot or dense plasma without performing a full thermal field theory calculation. It claims that the imaginary part of an $n$-loop finite-temperature self-energy, which sets the in-medium damping and production rate of a particle, can be reduced to a sum of thermally weighted tree-level vacuum rates by systematically cutting the self-energy diagram. The central new ingredient is a class of "interference" contributions from asymmetric cuts, which represent forward scattering of a thermal spectator and have no vacuum analogue. In two toy models the authors find that omitting these terms changes production rates by an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ amount, most strongly at temperatures near the produced particle's mass, and that their size is comparable to the thermal-mass corrections usually included in the literature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SSHB decomposition of $\mathrm{Im}\,\Pi^{(n)}(k)$, the imaginary part of the $n$-loop self-energy, into an integral over products of tree-level amplitudes (Eq. (3.22)). The machinery has four steps: enumerate self-energy diagrams, list all distinct bisections (cuts through one or more propagators), open each internal loop with "loopectomy" partial cuts that put spectator particles on-shell, and sum the resulting processes with Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac phase-space weights. A technical signature of the interference terms is the appearance of derivatives of on-shell delta functions, $\delta^{(+)'}(q^2-m^2)$, in place of the simple $\delta^{(+)}$ factors familiar from the optical theorem.

What would settle it

Evaluate the scalar-fermion-vector production rate at a temperature where the ambient fermion's thermal mass is a significant fraction of its vacuum mass, using resummed propagators, and check whether the interference terms (the $\delta^{(+)'}$ contributions) match the SSHB expression with $m$ replaced by the thermal mass; a mismatch of order one in that regime would show the rules are only complete in the stated zero-thermal-mass limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that production and absorption of a particle $\Phi$ in an equilibrium heat bath can be computed from the imaginary part of its self-energy by a set of cutting rules (SSHB) valid at arbitrary loop order. Every bisection of the self-energy diagram, symmetric or asymmetric, is turned into a set of processes by putting cut propagators on-shell; internal loops are then opened by partial cuts so that all amplitudes are tree-level. Symmetric bisections reproduce the standard thermally weighted vacuum rates, while asymmetric bisections yield products of an $n\to m$ amplitude and an $n+\ell\to m+\ell$ amplitude in which the $\ell$ particle is a momentum-conserving spectator, producing corrections with no vacuum analogue. The authors verify the rules by deriving them from the imaginary-time formalism for a two-loop scalar self-energy, recovering the same expression (Eq. (3.23) versus Eq. (4.8)). They then show in an all-scalar model and in a scalar-fermion-vector model that these interference terms suppress the net production rate and can produce $\mathcal{O}(1)$ corrections, with the largest effect when the bath temperature is comparable to $m_\Phi$.

Load-bearing premise

The rules are derived for particles in the loop whose vacuum mass is much larger than their thermal mass ($m_{\phi_i}\gtrsim gT$); if heat bath is hot enough to give a loop particle a large thermal mass, the propagator structure changes and the rules need resummation, an extension the paper leaves to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Freeze-in dark matter abundances computed from $1\to 2$ decays plus $2\to 2$ scattering should be re-examined: the interference corrections are largest for $T\sim m_\Phi$, the window where freeze-in is typically most sensitive, and can shift the rate by an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ amount.
  • The commonly used shortcut of replacing loop-level thermal rates by thermally weighted vacuum tree-level rates is incomplete beyond one loop; without the asymmetric-cut interference terms, finite-temperature rates can miss infrared and collinear divergent contributions that cancel only when the full set of processes is included.
  • In stellar and early-universe calculations where a precision better than $\mathcal{O}(1)$ is required, interference corrections and thermal mass corrections should be included together, since the two are of comparable size in the models studied.
  • The SSHB expressions give explicit, ready-to-integrate formulas (Eqs. (5.2), (5.4), (5.7), (5.8)) so beyond-the-Standard-Model production rates reduce to Bessel-function-weighted phase-space integrals over tree-level matrix elements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these rules generalize as claimed, a concrete benchmark such as a minimal dark-photon or light-scalar freeze-in model should show an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ downward shift in the predicted relic abundance, a shift that existing numerical Boltzmann solvers could test directly.
  • The asymmetric-cut cancellation of collinear divergences suggests a close connection between SSHB and medium-induced line broadening; the same interference physics might be visible as an in-medium opacity correction in spectral distortions of stellar emission.
  • Because the validity regime excludes large thermal masses ($T\gtrsim m/e$), an extension that resums hard thermal loops could reveal even larger interference effects in hotter environments, making the demonstrated $\mathcal{O}(1)$ corrections a plausible lower bound rather than an upper bound.
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 manuscript proposes a set of rules, called SSHB, for reducing the imaginary part of an n-loop finite-temperature self-energy in the imaginary-time formalism to a sum of thermally weighted tree-level processes. The key new element is the asymmetric bisection: in addition to symmetric cuts that reproduce standard in-medium rates, cuts in which one or both halves retain internal loops generate 'interference' contributions that have no vacuum analogue. The authors work out a two-loop all-scalar example, verify the resulting expression against a direct ITF calculation, and then apply the method to an all-scalar and a scalar-fermion-vector toy model, finding that interference terms can alter production rates by an O(1) amount and that this correction is comparable in size to thermal-mass effects. The paper explicitly scopes the formalism to the regime where thermal masses of the loop particles are negligible.

Significance. If the SSHB mapping is valid beyond the verified example, it would provide a practical shortcut for freeze-in and stellar-production calculations and would highlight a class of thermal corrections that is usually omitted in BSM phenomenology. The two-loop verification in Sec. 4 is a genuine strength: the direct ITF expression (Eq. (4.8)) matches the SSHB expression (Eq. (3.23)), so the mapping is not merely asserted at that order. The rules are explicit and the numerical demonstration, while restricted to toy models, makes a useful quantitative point about the potential size of interference corrections. However, the advertised completeness at arbitrary loop order goes beyond the evidence presented, and the treatment of the spectator weight's 1/2 term is not fully justified. These two points currently limit the strength of the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.22); Sec. 6; Abstract] The claim that SSHB is a 'complete set of rules' valid 'at arbitrary loop order n' is an extrapolation. The only multi-loop corroboration in Sec. 4 is a single two-loop topology whose asymmetric half contains a one-loop subdiagram. A three-loop self-energy can have an asymmetric half containing a two-loop subdiagram with nested or overlapping loops, requiring products of higher-order Matsubara residues rather than the single derivative delta-function encountered here. The paper gives no proof that the loopectomy prescription in Eqs. (3.16)-(3.21) commutes with the residue and discontinuity identities of App. A at that level, nor that different bisection-plus-loopectomy combinations do not double-count the same physical cut. I recommend either providing an induction argument or an explicit three-loop check, or reframing Eq. (3.22) as a rule verified at two-loop order rather than a proven n-loop theorem.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.18); Sec. 4, Eq. (4.8); Sec. 5.2, Eqs. (5.7)-(5.8)] The treatment of the spectator weight (1/2 + f) is internally inconsistent and load-bearing for the numerical results. Eq. (3.18) defines the thermal weight as 1/2 + eta f, and the text says this 1/2 'needs to be dropped when computing rates,' but the ITF-derived Eq. (4.8) and the SSHB expression Eq. (3.23), which are claimed to match, both retain (1/2 + f). The production-rate formulas in Sec. 5 omit this constant. Since the O(1) results in Figs. 3-7 are computed without the 1/2, the subtraction is not cosmetic. The analogy with renormalizing the vacuum self-energy is suggestive but is not demonstrated. Please show explicitly how the 1/2 contribution cancels or is absorbed when the production rate is formed, or state clearly that the rules apply only to the finite-density part of ImPi.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Caveats; Figs. 5-7] The paper's own caveat about thermal masses is clearly stated and the invalid high-temperature region is shaded in the figures, which is good practice. However, this means the O(1) impact demonstrated in Sec. 5 is established only for fixed benchmark parameters and only for T below the shaded region. I would ask the authors to make this restriction explicit in the abstract and conclusions, where the phrasing currently suggests a broader scope than the supporting calculation actually covers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.18)] The notation f(q0_j) is not defined in Table 1; use f^{(eta_j)}(q0_j) consistently, as in Eq. (3.12).
  2. [Sec. 5, first paragraph] The word 'Bolztmann' should be 'Boltzmann'.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.7)] The expression is dense; one or two sentences identifying which terms correspond to symmetric versus asymmetric cuts would help a reader connect Eq. (4.7) to Eq. (3.23).
  4. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (5.22)] The symbols m_i and m_{i,\rm th} are used before being defined; please define m_i as the vacuum mass of species i and clarify the meaning of the subscript i in the thermal-mass estimates.
  5. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 4; Sec. 5.2, Figs. 6-7] The figure captions could state explicitly that the curves show fixed benchmark parameters rather than a scan; the text is clear, but the figures alone are open to overinterpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

SSHB rules are independently corroborated by a direct ITF computation; self-citations are contextual and no load-bearing reduction was found.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained, so no circular step is identified. The SSHB rules in Sec. 3 are presented as a prescription, but the central claim that they reproduce the ITF discontinuity is not assumed: Sec. 4 performs the full two-loop ITF calculation, and the paper explicitly states: "This is exactly the formula one obtains in Eq. (3.23) by using the SSHB prescription detailed in Section 3." The ITF starting point in Eq. (4.1) is the standard Matsubara expression, and the residue and discontinuity identities in App. A are derived in the paper rather than imported from the authors' prior work. The thermal weight (1/2 + f) appearing in Eq. (3.18) is not a fitted parameter; it arises from the coth/tanh structure of the ITF sum and is checked against the two-loop evaluation. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing: Ref. [34] is a pedagogical pointer in a footnote, Ref. [57] is deferred to future anisotropic-plasma work, and Ref. [21] is cited as an application example in the introduction. The explicitly stated limitations — the thermal-mass caveat in Sec. 3.3 and the fact that Sec. 4 corroborates only a single two-loop topology before the arbitrary-loop-order claim — are scope and correctness risks, not circularity: no equation is identified that reduces to itself, to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central framework itself uses no fitted parameters; the demonstration of O(1) impact uses fixed toy-model masses and couplings chosen by hand. The main axioms are the equilibrium assumption of ITF, the neglect of thermal masses, CP symmetry for rate inversion, and the dropping of the 1/2 in the spectator thermal weight. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • All-scalar toy model parameters (masses and couplings) = Fixed values in Figs. 3-4, not quoted in text
    Chosen by hand to demonstrate the framework; the paper notes the relative error depends on these choices (Sec. 5.1).
  • Scalar-fermion-vector toy model parameters incl. chemical potential = Fixed values in Figs. 5-7; mu_f in [0,3] MeV
    Chosen to illustrate fermion density effects; the paper states the prescription is valid only for T less than about m_f/e.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All particles running in the self-energy loop are in thermal equilibrium (ITF assumption)
    Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3.3: the ITF is built on equilibrium distributions; for out-of-equilibrium Phi this requires Phi not appear in its own loop, limiting the framework to single-Phi production.
  • domain assumption Thermal masses of loop particles are negligible or purely functions of T and mu
    Sec. 3.3 Caveats: valid when m_phi_i is greater than or similar to gT or when the thermal mass shift is momentum-independent; otherwise resummation is required and the simple pole replacement fails.
  • domain assumption CP symmetry of matrix elements is used to relate absorption and production rates
    Eq. (3.12) and text: production rates are obtained by flipping s_i and adding or subtracting for fermions or bosons; assumes |M|^2 is CP symmetric.
  • ad hoc to paper The 1/2 in the spectator thermal weight (1/2 + f) is dropped when computing rates
    Around Eq. (3.18) and Eq. (4.9): the temperature-independent part is discarded by analogy with vacuum renormalization; this is asserted, not derived within the paper.
  • standard math Matsubara frequency summation identities (Eqs. 4.4-4.6) and residue or discontinuity identities in App. A
    Standard thermal field theory mathematics relied upon for converting Matsubara sums to integrals over delta functions and derivatives of delta functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral Surgery in a Heat Bath: a finite-temperature guide to particle production for phenomenologists." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIAX5WQR

@misc{pith2026250714277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral Surgery in a Heat Bath: a finite-temperature guide to particle production for phenomenologists},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIAX5WQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14277}
}
abstract

Quantifying the effects of finite temperature and density (FTD) on particle properties is essential for understanding phenomena within and beyond the Standard Model. In this work, we present a simplified framework for calculating particle production rates at FTD without resorting to a full thermal field theory calculation. We do so by relating the imaginary part of a particle's $n$-loop finite temperature self energy, which defines its in-medium damping rate, to a sum of thermally weighted tree-level vacuum rates. Such a mapping results in novel "interference" contributions to particle production which have no vacuum analog and which have been relatively overlooked in the phenomenology literature. These interference terms are known to regulate collinear and infrared divergences that arise when calculating interaction rates in a medium. We demonstrate the impact of these corrections with two toy models and find that properly accounting for these interference terms can alter particle production by an $O(1)$ amount. We additionally compare the size of these corrections to the thermal mass corrections often studied in the literature, finding the sizes of these contributions to be of similar order.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Resonant axion and dark photon production in magnetic white dwarfs

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Magnetic fields broaden the resonant conversion of photons to axions and dark photons inside magnetic white dwarfs, enabling emission where none occurred before.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Das.Finite Temperature Field Theory

    Ashok K. Das.Finite Temperature Field Theory. World Scientific, New York, 1997. ISBN 978-981-02-2856-9, 978-981-4498-23-4

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    J. I. Kapusta and Charles Gale.Finite-temperature field theory: Principles and applications. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2011. ISBN 978-0-521-17322-3, 978-0-521-82082-0, 978-0-511-22280-1. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511535130

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511535130 2011

  3. [3]

    Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics

    Michel Le Bellac.Thermal Field Theory. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 3 2011. ISBN 978-0-511-88506-8, 978-0-521-65477-7. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511721700. – 40 –

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511721700 2011

  4. [4]

    Neff in the Standard Model at NLO is 3.043.Phys

    Mattia Cielo, Miguel Escudero, Gianpiero Mangano, and Ofelia Pisanti. Neff in the Standard Model at NLO is 3.043.Phys. Rev. D, 108(12):L121301, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L121301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.l121301 2023

  5. [5]

    Esposito, G

    S. Esposito, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and O. Pisanti. Big bang nucleosynthesis: An Accurate determination of light element yields.Nucl. Phys. B, 568:421–444, 2000. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00725-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(99)00725-7

  6. [6]

    Scott Dodelson and Michael S. Turner. Nonequilibrium neutrino statistical mechanics in the expanding universe. Phys. Rev. D, 46:3372–3387, Oct 1992. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.3372

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.3372 1992

  7. [7]

    Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures.Rept

    Anupam Mazumdar and Graham White. Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures.Rept. Prog. Phys., 82(7):076901, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ab1f55

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab1f55 2019

  8. [8]

    G. G. Raffelt.Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles. University of Chicago Press, 5 1996. ISBN 978-0-226-70272-8

    work page 1996

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition.PoS, COSMICWISPers:041, 2024

    Andrea Caputo and Georg Raffelt. Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition.PoS, COSMICWISPers:041, 2024. doi: 10.22323/1.454.0041

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Axion astrophysics

    Pierluca Carenza, Maurizio Giannotti, Jordi Isern, Alessandro Mirizzi, and Oscar Straniero. Axion astrophysics. Phys. Rept., 1117:1–102, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2025.02.002

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Davidson, B

    S. Davidson, B. Campbell, and David C. Bailey. Limits on particles of small electric charge. Phys. Rev. D, 43:2314–2321, 1991. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2314

    1991 doi

  4. [12]

    Sacha Davidson and Michael E. Peskin. Astrophysical bounds on millicharged particles in models with a paraphoton.Phys. Rev. D, 49:2114–2117, 1994. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2114

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects

    Edward Hardy and Robert Lasenby. Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects. JHEP, 02:033, 2017. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2017)033

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    New limits on dark photons from solar emission and keV scale dark matter.Phys

    Haipeng An, Maxim Pospelov, Josef Pradler, and Adam Ritz. New limits on dark photons from solar emission and keV scale dark matter.Phys. Rev. D, 102:115022, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.115022

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    New stellar constraints on dark photons

    Haipeng An, Maxim Pospelov, and Josef Pradler. New stellar constraints on dark photons. Phys. Lett. B, 725:190–195, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.008

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Stetson, Georg Raffelt, Javier Redondo, Aldo A

    Nicolás Viaux, Márcio Catelan, Peter B. Stetson, Georg Raffelt, Javier Redondo, Aldo A. R. Valcarce, and Achim Weiss. Particle-physics constraints from the globular cluster M5: Neutrino Dipole Moments.Astron. Astrophys., 558:A12, 2013. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322004

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Stetson, Georg Raffelt, Javier Redondo, Aldo A

    Nicolás Viaux, Márcio Catelan, Peter B. Stetson, Georg Raffelt, Javier Redondo, Aldo A. R. Valcarce, and Achim Weiss. Neutrino and axion bounds from the globular cluster M5 (NGC 5904). Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:231301, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.231301

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Isern, E

    J. Isern, E. Garcia-Berro, S. Torres, and S. Catalan. Axions and the cooling of white dwarf stars. Astrophys. J. Lett., 682:L109, 2008. doi: 10.1086/591042

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    Corsico, Leandro G

    Alejandro H. Corsico, Leandro G. Althaus, Marcelo M. Miller Bertolami, Alejandra D. Romero, Enrique Garcia-Berro, Jordi Isern, and S. O. Kepler. The rate of cooling of the pulsating white dwarf star G117−B15A: a new asteroseismological inference of the axion mass. Mon. Not. Ro...

    2012

  12. [20]

    Dark Radiation constraints on minicharged particles in models with a hidden photon.JCAP, 02:029, 2014

    Hendrik Vogel and Javier Redondo. Dark Radiation constraints on minicharged particles in models with a hidden photon.JCAP, 02:029, 2014. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/02/029

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Making dark matter out of light: freeze-in from plasma effects.Phys

    Cora Dvorkin, Tongyan Lin, and Katelin Schutz. Making dark matter out of light: freeze-in from plasma effects.Phys. Rev. D, 99(11):115009, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.115009. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 119901 (2022)]

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Freezing-in a hot bath: resonances, medium effects and phase transitions.JHEP, 02:110, 2022

    Torsten Bringmann, Saniya Heeba, Felix Kahlhoefer, and Kristian Vangsnes. Freezing-in a hot bath: resonances, medium effects and phase transitions.JHEP, 02:110, 2022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2022)110

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Probing the freeze-in mechanism in dark matter models with U(1)’ gauge extensions.Phys

    Saniya Heeba and Felix Kahlhoefer. Probing the freeze-in mechanism in dark matter models with U(1)’ gauge extensions.Phys. Rev. D, 101(3):035043, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.035043

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Freeze-in production of decaying dark matter in five steps.JCAP, 11:048, 2018

    Saniya Heeba, Felix Kahlhoefer, and Patrick Stöcker. Freeze-in production of decaying dark matter in five steps.JCAP, 11:048, 2018. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/048

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Dark matter freeze-in from non-equilibrium QFT: towards a consistent treatment of thermal effects.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(03):071, 2025

    Mathias Becker, Emanuele Copello, Julia Harz, and Carlos Tamarit. Dark matter freeze-in from non-equilibrium QFT: towards a consistent treatment of thermal effects.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(03):071, 2025. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/071

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    Audrey Fung, Saniya Heeba, Qinrui Liu, Varun Muralidharan, Katelin Schutz, and Aaron C. Vincent. New bounds on light millicharged particles from the tip of the red-giant branch. Phys. Rev. D, 109(8):083011, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083011

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    From supernovae to neutron stars: a systematic approach to axion production at finite density

    Konstantin Springmann, Michael Stadlbauer, Stefan Stelzl, and Andreas Weiler. From supernovae to neutron stars: a systematic approach to axion production at finite density. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2025(2), February 2025. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep02(2025)138

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Dolan, Frederick J

    Matthew J. Dolan, Frederick J. Hiskens, and Raymond R. Volkas. Constraining dark photons with self-consistent simulations of globular cluster stars.JCAP, 05:099, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/099

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Arthur Weldon

    H. Arthur Weldon. Simple Rules for Discontinuities in Finite Temperature Field Theory. Phys. Rev. D, 28:2007, 1983. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2007

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Barclay Adams, Malvin A

    J. Barclay Adams, Malvin A. Ruderman, and Ching Hung Woo. Neutrino pair emission by a stellar plasma. Phys. Rev., 129:1383–1390, Feb 1963. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.129.1383

    1963 doi

  23. [31]

    S. M. H. Wong. Disentangling the imaginary time formalism at finite temperature.Phys. Rev. D, 64:025007, 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.025007

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Kapusta and S

    Joseph I. Kapusta and S. M. H. Wong. Two loop selfenergy and multiple scattering at finite temperature. Phys. Rev. D, 64:045008, 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.045008

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    Majumder and Charles Gale

    A. Majumder and Charles Gale. On the imaginary parts and infrared divergences of two loop vector boson selfenergies in thermal QCD.Phys. Rev. C, 65:055203, 2002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.055203

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    Finite temperature field theory for the masses

    Hugo Schérer. Finite temperature field theory for the masses. Master’s thesis, McGill U., 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Singularities and discontinuities of feynman amplitudes.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 1(5):429–433, 1960

    Richard E Cutkosky. Singularities and discontinuities of feynman amplitudes.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 1(5):429–433, 1960. – 42 –

    1960

  28. [36]

    Peskin and Daniel V

    Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder.An Introduction to quantum field theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995. ISBN 978-0-201-50397-5, 978-0-429-50355-9, 978-0-429-49417-8. doi: 10.1201/9780429503559

    1995 doi

  29. [37]

    Schwartz.Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model

    Matthew D. Schwartz.Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, 3 2014. ISBN 978-1-107-03473-0, 978-1-107-03473-0

    2014

  30. [38]

    Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis

    Paolo Gondolo and Graciela Gelmini. Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis. Nucl. Phys. B, 360:145–179, 1991. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(91)90438-4

    1991 doi

  31. [39]

    Pisarski

    Robert D. Pisarski. Scattering Amplitudes in Hot Gauge Theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 63:1129,

  32. [40]

    Pisarski

    Eric Braaten and Robert D. Pisarski. Resummation and gauge invariance of the gluon damping rate in hot qcd.Phys. Rev. Lett., 64:1338–1341, Mar 1990. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.1338

    1990 doi

  33. [41]

    Pisarski

    Eric Braaten and Robert D. Pisarski. Soft Amplitudes in Hot Gauge Theories: A General Analysis. Nucl. Phys. B, 337:569–634, 1990. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(90)90508-B

    1990 doi

  34. [42]

    Frenkel and J

    J. Frenkel and J. C. Taylor. High Temperature Limit of Thermal QCD.Nucl. Phys. B, 334: 199–216, 1990. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(90)90661-V

    1990 doi

  35. [43]

    Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities.Phys

    Eric Braaten and Daniel Segel. Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities.Phys. Rev. D, 48:1478–1491, 1993. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1478

    1993 doi

  36. [44]

    Xiaoyong Chu, Thomas Hambye, and Michel H. G. Tytgat. The Four Basic Ways of Creating Dark Matter Through a Portal.JCAP, 05:034, 2012. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/05/034

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Inelastic freeze-in.Phys

    Saniya Heeba, Tongyan Lin, and Katelin Schutz. Inelastic freeze-in.Phys. Rev. D, 108(9): 095016, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.095016

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    E. C. G. Stueckelberg. Interaction energy in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces. Helv. Phys. Acta, 11:225–244, 1938. doi: 10.5169/seals-110852

    1938 doi

  39. [47]

    Kinoshita

    T. Kinoshita. Mass singularities of Feynman amplitudes.J. Math. Phys., 3:650–677, 1962. doi: 10.1063/1.1724268

    1962 doi

  40. [48]

    T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg. Degenerate systems and mass singularities.Phys. Rev., 133: B1549–B1562, Mar 1964. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.133.B1549

    1964 doi

  41. [49]

    T. Altherr. Introduction to thermal field theory.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 8:5605–5628, 1993. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X93002216

    1993 doi

  42. [50]

    Cancellation of infrared and collinear singularities in relativistic thermal field theories (ii).Nuclear Physics B, 380(3):423–430, 1992

    Michel Le Bellac and Patrick Reynaud. Cancellation of infrared and collinear singularities in relativistic thermal field theories (ii).Nuclear Physics B, 380(3):423–430, 1992. ISSN 0550-3213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(92)90252-7

    1992 doi

  43. [51]

    Arthur Weldon

    H. Arthur Weldon. Bloch-nordsieck cancellation of infrared divergences at finite temperature. Phys. Rev. D, 44:3955–3963, Dec 1991. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3955

    1991 doi

  44. [52]

    Neutrino Emissivity of an Ultrarelativistic Plasma from Positron and Plasmino Annihilation

    Eric Braaten. Neutrino Emissivity of an Ultrarelativistic Plasma from Positron and Plasmino Annihilation. The Astrophysical Journal, 392:70, June 1992. doi: 10.1086/171405

    1992 doi

  45. [53]

    Relativistic Freeze-in.Phys

    Oleg Lebedev and Takashi Toma. Relativistic Freeze-in.Phys. Lett. B, 798:134961, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134961

    2019

  46. [54]

    Forbidden frozen-in dark matter.JHEP, 11:159, 2019

    Luc Darmé, Andrzej Hryczuk, Dimitrios Karamitros, and Leszek Roszkowski. Forbidden frozen-in dark matter.JHEP, 11:159, 2019. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2019)159. – 43 –

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Probing Dark Matter freeze-in with long-lived particle signatures: MATHUSLA, HL-LHC and FCC-hh.JHEP, 03:022, 2020

    Jose Miguel No, Patrick Tunney, and Bryan Zaldivar. Probing Dark Matter freeze-in with long-lived particle signatures: MATHUSLA, HL-LHC and FCC-hh.JHEP, 03:022, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2020)022

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Thermally corrected masses and freeze-in dark matter: A case study.Phys

    Nabarun Chakrabarty, Partha Konar, Rishav Roshan and, and Sudipta Show. Thermally corrected masses and freeze-in dark matter: A case study.Phys. Rev. D, 107(3):035021,

  49. [57]

    Photon conversion to axions and dark photons in magnetized plasmas: a finite-temperature field theory approach.JHEP, 12:191, 2024

    Nirmalya Brahma and Katelin Schutz. Photon conversion to axions and dark photons in magnetized plasmas: a finite-temperature field theory approach.JHEP, 12:191, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2024)191

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Cutting rules for non-relativistic dark matter in solids based on Kohn-Sham orbitals

    Zheng-Liang Liang and Fawei Zheng. Cutting rules for non-relativistic dark matter in solids based on Kohn-Sham orbitals. July 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    feyndraw

    Hugo Schérer. feyndraw. July 2025. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16100536

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3.Comput

    Thomas Hahn. Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3.Comput. Phys. Commun., 140:418–431, 2001. doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(01)00290-9

    2001 doi

  53. [61]

    Feyncalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?Computer Physics Communications, 306:109357, January 2025

    Vladyslav Shtabovenko, Rolf Mertig, and Frederik Orellana. Feyncalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?Computer Physics Communications, 306:109357, January 2025. ISSN 0010-4655. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109357

    2025

  54. [62]

    Feyncalc 9.3: New features and improvements

    Vladyslav Shtabovenko, Rolf Mertig, and Frederik Orellana. Feyncalc 9.3: New features and improvements. Computer Physics Communications, 256:107478, November 2020. ISSN 0010-4655. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107478

    2020

  55. [63]

    New developments in feyncalc 9.0

    Vladyslav Shtabovenko, Rolf Mertig, and Frederik Orellana. New developments in feyncalc 9.0. Computer Physics Communications, 207:432–444, October 2016. ISSN 0010-4655. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2016.06.008

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Böhm, and A. Denner. Feyn calc - computer-algebraic calculation of feynman amplitudes. Computer Physics Communications, 64(3):345–359, 1991. ISSN 0010-4655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(91)90130-D

    1991 doi

  57. [65]

    Harris, K

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, Robert Kern, Matti Picus, Stephan Hoyer, Marten H. van Kerkwijk, Matthew Brett, Allan Haldane, Jaime Fe...

    2020

  58. [66]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, E...

  59. [67]

    John D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment.Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3):90–95, 2007. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    Mathematica, Version 14.2

    Wolfram Research, Inc. Mathematica, Version 14.2. Champaign, IL, 2024. – 45 –

    2024

  61. [1989]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1129

    doi

  62. [2020]

    doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    ISSN 1548-7105. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi

  63. [2023]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.035021

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.