MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415908473 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202533902015

Deciphering yield modification of hadron-triggered semi-inclusive recoil jets in heavy-ion collisions

2025· article· en· W4415908473 on OpenAlexaff
Y. He, Shanshan Cao, Rongrong Ma, L. Yi, H. Caines

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRecoilHadronJet quenchingJet (fluid)Yield (engineering)Quenching (fluorescence)Boltzmann constant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jet quenching is recognized as critical evidence for the existence of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) and serves as an essential probe to study its transport properties. Measurements of hadron-triggered semi-inclusive recoil jets have gained popularity due to its capability to probe jets over an extended phase space at low transverse momenta ( p T ) and large radii. Recent ALICE measurements showed that the I AA , yield ratio of recoil jets between heavy-ion and p+p collisions, rises with jet p T and exceeds unity at high p T , contradicting conventional expectations that jet quenching should result in I AA values less than one. In this contribution, we re-examine the surface bias and study the effects of energy losses for both trigger hadrons and recoil jets on I AA , employing the Linear Boltzmann Transport (LBT) model to simulate jet-medium interactions. Our findings suggest that a large portion of hadrons used for the triggers undergoes substantial energy loss, despite surface bias. In particular, the energy loss of the trigger hadrons elevates the I AA baseline, corresponding to the case of no energy loss for recoil jets, to be greatly larger than unity. This enhancement of the baseline implies that the measured I AA values being larger than unity could still signal jet quenching.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207