Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (233)
- Preprint (199)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (433)
Has Fulltext
- yes (433)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (433)
Keywords
- BESIII (19)
- e +-e − Experiments (15)
- Branching fraction (11)
- Particle and Resonance Production (8)
- Charm Physics (6)
- Quarkonium (6)
- Spectroscopy (6)
- Hadronic decays (5)
- Branching fractions (4)
- Charmonium (4)
We report the first observations of the first harmonic (directed flow, v1) and the fourth harmonic (v4), in the azimuthal distribution of particles with respect to the reaction plane in Au+Au collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). Both measurements were done taking advantage of the large elliptic flow (v2) generated at RHIC. From the correlation of v2 with v1 it is determined that v2 is positive, or in-plane. The integrated v4 is about a factor of 10 smaller than v2. For the sixth (v6) and eighth (v8) harmonics upper limits on the magnitudes are reported.
We present a new type of flow analysis, based on a particle-pair correlation function, in which there is no need for an event-by-event determination of the reaction plane. Consequently, the need to correct for dispersion in an estimated reaction plane does not arise. Our method also offers the option to avoid any influence from particle misidentification. Using this method, streamer chamber data for collisions of Ar+KCl and Ar+BaI2 at 1.2 GeV/nucleon are compared with predictions of a nuclear transport model.
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.