Paper detail

Evaluating the blast-wave model as a description of 5 TeV p-Pb $\bf p_t$ spectra

The blast-wave (BW) spectrum model is interpreted to reveal relativistic motion (collective flow) of the hadron emission system relative to the center-of-momentum (CM) frame in high-energy A-B collisions. In essence, any spectrum deviation in the CM frame from a reference distribution (e.g. Boltzmann distribution on transverse mass $m_t$) is interpreted to reveal a flowing particle source. The ALICE collaboration has applied the BW model to identified hadron (PID) spectra for four hadron species from 5 TeV $p$-Pb collisions. From model fits BW parameters $T_{kin}$ (freeze-out temperature) and $\langle β_t \rangle$ (transverse speed) are inferred that suggest strong radial expansion in more-central $p$-Pb collisions. Such results from the small $p$-Pb collision system are counterintuitive given that strong radial expansion should be driven by large density gradients. The present study is intended to address that problem. Several methods are employed to evaluate the quality of the BW model data description, including logarithmic derivatives and the Z-score statistic. The stability of the BW model definition across several applications to data is investigated. The BW model data description is compare to that of the two-component (soft+hard) model (TCM) that has been previously applied to the same $p$-Pb PID spectra. The general conclusion is that the BW model is falsified by $p$-Pb PID spectrum data according to standard statistical measures and that the fitted parameter values do not convey the intended meaning. Statistically acceptable data descriptions provided by the TCM indicate that other collision mechanisms (projectile-nucleon dissociation, dijet production), that are consistent with conventional QCD, are more likely responsible for observed spectrum characteristics.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.