Resonances and fluctuations at SPS and RHIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform an analysis of preliminary data on hadron yields and fluctuations within the Statistical hadronization ansatz. We describe the theoretical disagreements between different statistical models currently on the market, and show how the simultaneous analysis of yields and fluctuations can be used to determine if one of them can be connected to underlying physics. We perform such an analysis on preliminary RHIC and SPS A-A data that includes particle yields, ratios and event by event fluctuations. We show that the equilibrium statistical model can not describe the $K/\\pi$ fluctuation measured at RHIC and SPS, unless an unrealistically small volume is assumed. Such small volume then makes it impossible to describe the total particle multiplicity. The non-equilibrium model,on the other hand, describes both the $K/\\pi$ fluctuation and yields acceptably due to the extra boost to the $\\pi$ fluctuation provided by the high pion chemical potential. We show, however, that both models significantly over-estimate the $p/\\pi$ fluctuation measured at the SPS, and speculate for the reason behind this.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".