Showing 3 of 13 results
A measurement of event-plane correlations involving two or three event planes of different order is presented as a function of centrality for 7 ub-1 Pb+Pb collision data at sqrt(s_NN)=2.76 TeV, recorded by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Fourteen correlators are measured using a standard event-plane method and a scalar-product method, and the latter method is found to give a systematically larger correlation signal. Several different trends in the centrality dependence of these correlators are observed. These trends are not reproduced by predictions based on the Glauber model, which includes only the correlations from the collision geometry in the initial state. Calculations that include the final-state collective dynamics are able to describe qualitatively, and in some cases also quantitatively, the centrality dependence of the measured correlators. These observations suggest that both the fluctuations in the initial geometry and non-linear mixing between different harmonics in the final state are important for creating these correlations in momentum space.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Two-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation data from SP method and EP method.
Three-plane EP correlation from Glauber model from SP method and EP method.
The distributions of event-by-event harmonic flow coefficients v_n for n=2-4 are measured in sqrt(s_NN)=2.76 TeV Pb+Pb collisions using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The measurements are performed using charged particles with transverse momentum pT> 0.5 GeV and in the pseudorapidity range |eta|<2.5 in a dataset of approximately 7 ub^-1 recorded in 2010. The shapes of the v_n distributions are described by a two-dimensional Gaussian function for the underlying flow vector in central collisions for v_2 and over most of the measured centrality range for v_3 and v_4. Significant deviations from this function are observed for v_2 in mid-central and peripheral collisions, and a small deviation is observed for v_3 in mid-central collisions. It is shown that the commonly used multi-particle cumulants are insensitive to the deviations for v_2. The v_n distributions are also measured independently for charged particles with 0.5<pT<1 GeV and pT>1 GeV. When these distributions are rescaled to the same mean values, the adjusted shapes are found to be nearly the same for these two pT ranges. The v_n distributions are compared with the eccentricity distributions from two models for the initial collision geometry: a Glauber model and a model that includes corrections to the initial geometry due to gluon saturation effects. Both models fail to describe the experimental data consistently over most of the measured centrality range.
The relationship between centrality intervals and MEAN(Npart) estimated from the Glauber model.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of MEAN(V2) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of SIGMA(V2) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of SIGMA(V2)/MEAN(V2) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of MEAN(V3) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of SIGMA(V3) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of SIGMA(V3)/MEAN(V3) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of MEAN(V4) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of SIGMA(V4) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
The MEAN(Npart) dependence of SIGMA(V4)/MEAN(V4) for three pT ranges together with the total systematic uncertainties.
Eccentricity curves for EPSILON2 in Figure 12.
Eccentricity curves for EPSILON3 in Figure 12.
Eccentricity curves for EPSILON4 in Figure 12.
Comparison of MEAN(V2) and SQRT(MEAN(V2**2)), derived from the EbyE V2 distributions, with the V2(EP), for charged particles in the pT > 0.5 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V2**2)) and V2(EP) to MEAN(V2), for charged particles in the pT > 0.5 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V3) and SQRT(MEAN(V3**2)), derived from the EbyE V3 distributions, with the V3(EP), for charged particles in the pT > 0.5 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V3**2)) and V3(EP) to MEAN(V3), for charged particles in the pT > 0.5 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V4) and SQRT(MEAN(V4**2)), derived from the EbyE V4 distributions, with the V4(EP), for charged particles in the pT > 0.5 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V4**2)) and V4(EP) to MEAN(V4), for charged particles in the pT > 0.5 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V2) and SQRT(MEAN(V2**2)), derived from the EbyE V2 distributions, with the V2(EP), for charged particles in the 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V2**2)) and V2(EP) to MEAN(V2), for charged particles in the 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V3) and SQRT(MEAN(V3**2)), derived from the EbyE V3 distributions, with the V3(EP), for charged particles in the 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V3**2)) and V3(EP) to MEAN(V3), for charged particles in the 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V4) and SQRT(MEAN(V4**2)), derived from the EbyE V4 distributions, with the V4(EP), for charged particles in the 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V4**2)) and V4(EP) to MEAN(V4), for charged particles in the 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V2) and SQRT(MEAN(V2**2)), derived from the EbyE V2 distributions, with the V2(EP), for charged particles in the pT > 1 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V2**2)) and V2(EP) to MEAN(V2), for charged particles in the pT > 1 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V3) and SQRT(MEAN(V3**2)), derived from the EbyE V3 distributions, with the V3(EP), for charged particles in the pT > 1 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V3**2)) and V3(EP) to MEAN(V3), for charged particles in the pT > 1 GeV range.
Comparison of MEAN(V4) and SQRT(MEAN(V4**2)), derived from the EbyE V4 distributions, with the V4(EP), for charged particles in the pT > 1 GeV range.
The ratios of SQRT(MEAN(V4**2)) and V4(EP) to MEAN(V4), for charged particles in the pT > 1 GeV range.
Bessel-Gaussian fit parameters from Eq. (1.4) and total errors.
The dependence of MEAN(V2) and V2(RP) on MEAN(Npart).
The dependence of SIGMA(V2) and DELTA(V2) on MEAN(Npart).
The dependence of SIGMA(V2) / MEAN(V2) and DELTA(V2) / V2(RP) on MEAN(Npart).
Comparison of the V2(RP) obtained from the Bessel-Gaussian fit of the V2 distributions with the values for two-particle (V2(calc){2}), four-particle (V2(calc){4}), six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants calculated directly from the unfolded V2 distributions.
The ratios of the four-particle (V2(calc){4}), six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants to the fit results (V2(RP)), with the total uncertainties.
The ratios of the six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants to the four-particle (V2(calc){4}) cumulants, with the total uncertainties.
Comparison of the V3(RP) obtained from the Bessel-Gaussian fit of the V3 distributions with the values for two-particle (V3(calc){2}), four-particle (V3(calc){4}), six-particle (V3(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V3(calc){8}) cumulants calculated directly from the unfolded V3 distributions.
The ratios of the four-particle (V3(calc){4}), six-particle (V3(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V3(calc){8}) cumulants to the fit results (V3(RP)), with the total uncertainties.
The ratios of the six-particle (V3(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V3(calc){8}) cumulants to the four-particle (V3(calc){4}) cumulants, with the total uncertainties.
The standard deviation (SIGMA(V2)), the width obtained from Bessel-Gaussian function (DELTA(V2)), the width F1 = SQRT( ( V2(calc){2}**2 - V2(calc){4}**2 ) / 2 ) estimated from the two-particle cumulant (V2(calc){2}) and four-particle cumulant (V2(calc){4}), where these cumulants are calculated analytically via Eq. (5.3) from the V2 distribution.
Various estimates of the relative fluctuations given as SIGMA(V2) / MEAN(V2), DELTA(V2) / V2(RP), F2 = SQRT( ( V2(calc){2}**2 - V2(calc){4}**2) / ( 2*V2(calc){4}**2 ) ) and F3 = SQRT( ( V2(calc){2}**2 - V2(calc){4}**2) / ( V2(calc){2}**2 + V2(calc){4}**2 ) ).
Comparison in 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV of the V2(RP) obtained from the Bessel-Gaussian fit of the V2 distributions with the values for two-particle (V2(calc){2}), four-particle (V2(calc){4}), six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants calculated directly from the unfolded V2 distributions.
The ratios for 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV of the four-particle (V2(calc){4}), six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants to the fit results (V2(RP)), with the total uncertainties.
The ratios for 0.5 < pT < 1 GeV of the six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants to the four-particle (V2(calc){4}) cumulants, with the total uncertainties.
Comparison in pT > 1 GeV of the V2(RP) obtained from the Bessel-Gaussian fit of the V2 distributions with the values for two-particle (V2(calc){2}), four-particle (V2(calc){4}), six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants calculated directly from the unfolded V2 distributions.
The ratios for pT > 1 GeV of the four-particle (V2(calc){4}), six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants to the fit results (V2(RP)), with the total uncertainties.
The ratios for pT > 1 GeV of the six-particle (V2(calc){6}) and eight-particle (V2(calc){8}) cumulants to the four-particle (V2(calc){4}) cumulants, with the total uncertainties.
The values of V2(RP) and V2(RP,obs) obtained from the Bessel-Gaussian fits to the V2 and V2(obs) distributions, with the statistical uncertainties.
The values of DELTA(V2) and DELTA(V2,obs) obtained from the Bessel-Gaussian fits to the V2 and V2(obs) distributions, with the statistical uncertainties.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Differential measurements of charged particle azimuthal anisotropy are presented for lead-lead collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, based on an integrated luminosity of approximately 8 mb^-1. This anisotropy is characterized via a Fourier expansion of the distribution of charged particles in azimuthal angle (phi), with the coefficients v_n denoting the magnitude of the anisotropy. Significant v_2-v_6 values are obtained as a function of transverse momentum (0.5<pT<20 GeV), pseudorapidity (|eta|<2.5) and centrality using an event plane method. The v_n values for n>=3 are found to vary weakly with both eta and centrality, and their pT dependencies are found to follow an approximate scaling relation, v_n^{1/n}(pT) \propto v_2^{1/2}(pT). A Fourier analysis of the charged particle pair distribution in relative azimuthal angle (Dphi=phi_a-phi_b) is performed to extract the coefficients v_{n,n}=<cos (n Dphi)>. For pairs of charged particles with a large pseudorapidity gap (|Deta=eta_a-eta_b|>2) and one particle with pT<3 GeV, the v_{2,2}-v_{6,6} values are found to factorize as v_{n,n}(pT^a,pT^b) ~ v_n(pT^a)v_n(pT^b) in central and mid-central events. Such factorization suggests that these values of v_{2,2}-v_{6,6} are primarily due to the response of the created matter to the fluctuations in the geometry of the initial state. A detailed study shows that the v_{1,1}(pT^a,pT^b) data are consistent with the combined contributions from a rapidity-even v_1 and global momentum conservation. A two-component fit is used to extract the v_1 contribution. The extracted v_1 is observed to cross zero at pT\sim1.0 GeV, reaches a maximum at 4-5 GeV with a value comparable to that for v_3, and decreases at higher pT.
The EP Resolution Factor vs. Centrality for n values from2 to 6.
The Chi Reolution Factor vs. Centrality for n values from 2 to 6.
The one-dimensional Delta(PHI) correlation function vs Delta(PHI) for |DETARAP| in the range 2 to 5 summed over all n values from 1 to 6.
The Fourier coefficient V_n,n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| for individual n values.
The Fourier coefficient V_n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| from the 2PC anaysis for individual n values from 2 to n.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 0 TO 5%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 5 TO 10%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 10 TO 20%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 20 TO 30%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 30 TO 40%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 40 TO 50%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 50 TO 60%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 60 TO 70%.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 1 TO 2 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 2 TO 3 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 3 TO 4 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 4 TO 8 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 8 TO 12 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 12 TO 20 GeV.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1} vs pT for different centrality selections, Figure 21.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status Email Forum Twitter GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.