Effects of momentum conservation on the analysis of anisotropic flow

We present a general method for taking into account correlations due to momentum conservation in the analysis of anisotropic flow, either by using the two-particle correlation method or the standard flow vector method. In the latter, the correlation between the particle and the flow vector is either corrected through a redefinition (shift) of the flow vector, or subtracted explicitly from the observed flow coefficient. In addition, momentum conservation contributes to the reaction plane resolution. Momentum conservation mostly affects the first harmonic in azimuthal distributions, i.e., directed flow. It also modifies higher harmonics, for instance elliptic flow, when they are measured with respect to a first harmonic event plane such as one determined with the standard transverse momentum method. Our method is illustrated by application to NA49 data on pion directed flow.Comment: RevTeX 4, 10 pages, 1 eps figure. Version accepted for publication in Phys Rev

An analytic solution for energy loss and time-of-flight calculations for intermediate-energy light ions

Particle identification in intermediate heavy-ion collisions, using a modern 4 pi detector which contains several active layers, relies on a parametrisation or numerical integration of the energy loss in thick layers of detector material for different ions. Here an analytical solution applicable over an energy range of a few MeV up to a 100A MeV and for ions up to at least Z = 8 is presented. Also, the consequences for time-of-flight measurements (TOF) in detectors behind several thick layers of detector material are discussed. The solution is applied to the data of the Huygens detector, which uses a TPC (dE/dx) and plastic scintillators for particle identification(E and TOF or dE/dx and TOF). (C) 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

The nature of tournaments

This paper characterizes the optimal way for a principal to structure a rank-order tournament in a moral hazard setting (as in Lazear and Rosen in J Polit Econ 89:841–864, 1981). We find that it is often optimal to give rewards to top performers that are smaller in magnitude than corresponding punishments to poor performers. The paper identifies four reasons why the principal might prefer to give larger rewards than punishments: (1) R is small relative to P (where R is risk aversion and P is absolute prudence); (2) the distribution of shocks to output is asymmetric and the asymmetry takes a particular form; (3) the principal faces a limited liability constraint; and (4) there is agent heterogeneity of a particular form

Incentives and remuneration systems in dental services

Dentists, Contracts, Incentives, Effectiveness, Quality, I1,