MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910806377 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1602.03788

Event-by-event hydrodynamics $+$ jet energy loss: A solution to the $R_{AA} \otimes v_2$ puzzle

2016· preprint· en· W6910806377 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElliptic flowObservableJet (fluid)Event (particle physics)Flow (mathematics)Plane (geometry)Large Hadron Collider

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High $p_T > 10$ GeV elliptic flow, which is experimentally measured via the correlation between soft and hard hadrons, receives competing contributions from event-by-event fluctuations of the low $p_T$ elliptic flow and event plane angle fluctuations in the soft sector. In this paper, a proper account of these event-by-event fluctuations in the soft sector, modeled via viscous hydrodynamics, is combined with a jet energy loss model to reveal that the positive contribution from low $p_T$ $v_2$ fluctuations overwhelms the negative contributions from event plane fluctuations. This leads to an enhancement of high $p_T > 10$ GeV elliptic flow in comparison to previous calculations and provides a natural solution to the decade long high $p_T$ $R_{AA} \otimes v_2$ puzzle. We also present the first theoretical calculation of high $p_T$ $v_3$, which is shown to be compatible with current LHC data. Furthermore, we discuss how short wavelength jet-medium physics can be deconvoluted from the physics of soft, bulk event-by-event flow observables using event shape engineering techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207