Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (448)
- Preprint (334)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (783)
Has Fulltext
- yes (783)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (783)
Keywords
- BESIII (19)
- e +-e − Experiments (16)
- Branching fraction (12)
- LHC (9)
- Particle and Resonance Production (9)
- Quarkonium (8)
- Charm Physics (6)
- Spectroscopy (6)
- Hadron-Hadron Scattering (5)
- Hadronic decays (5)
Institute
The second and the third order anisotropic flow, V2 and V3, are mostly determined by the corresponding initial spatial anisotropy coefficients, ε2 and ε3, in the initial density distribution. In addition to their dependence on the same order initial anisotropy coefficient, higher order anisotropic flow, Vn (n > 3), can also have a significant contribution from lower order initial anisotropy coefficients, which leads to mode-coupling effects. In this Letter we investigate the linear and non-linear modes in higher order anisotropic flow Vn for n = 4, 5, 6 with the ALICE detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The measurements are done for particles in the pseudorapidity range |η| < 0.8 and the transverse momentum range 0.2 < pT < 5.0 GeV/c as a function of collision centrality. The results are compared with theoretical calculations and provide important constraints on the initial conditions, including initial spatial geometry and its fluctuations, as well as the ratio of the shear viscosity to entropy density of the produced system.
Non-standard errors
(2021)
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.