The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic comparison of jet energy-loss schemes in a realistic hydrodynamic medium
Open accessAbstract
We perform a systematic comparison of three different jet energy-loss approaches. These include the Armesto-Salgado-Wiedemann scheme based on the approach of Baier-Dokshitzer-Mueller-Peigne-Schiff and Zakharov (BDMPS-Z/ASW), the higher twist (HT) approach and a scheme based on the Arnold-Moore-Yaffe (AMY) approach. In this comparison, an identical medium evolution will be utilized for all three approaches: this entails not only the use of the same realistic three-dimensional relativistic fluid dynamics (RFD) simulation, but also the use of identical initial parton-distribution functions and final fragmentation functions. We are, thus, in a unique position to not only isolate fundamental differences between the various approaches but also make rigorous calculations for different experimental measurements using state of the art components. All three approaches are reduced to versions containing only one free tunable parameter, this is then related to the well-known transport parameter $\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{q}$. We find that the parameters of all three calculations can be adjusted to provide a good description of inclusive data on ${R}_{\mathit{AA}}$ vs transverse momentum. However, we do observe slight differences in their predictions for the centrality and azimuthal angular dependence of ${R}_{\mathit{AA}}$ vs ${p}_{T}$. We also note that the values of the transport coefficient $\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{q}$ in the three approaches to describe the data differ significantly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adcox, K., Adler, S. S., Afanasiev, S., Aidala, C., Ajitanand, N. N., Akiba, Y., Al-Jamel, A., Alexander, J., Amirikas, R., Aoki, K., et al. (2005) · Nuclear Physics A · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086 · Cited by 3,025
Highly relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions: The central rapidity region
Bjorken, J. D. (1983) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.27.140 · Cited by 2,796
Cited by
First Results from Pb+Pb Collisions at the LHC
Müller, B., Schukraft, J., & Wysłouch, B. (2012) · Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-094910 · Cited by 450
Chatrchyan, S., Khachatryan, V., Sirunyan, A. M., Tumasyan, A., Adam, W., Bergauer, T., Dragicevic, M., Erö, J., Fabjan, C., Friedl, M., et al. (2013) · Physical Review C · doi:10.1103/physrevc.87.014902 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Bass, S. A., Gale, C., Majumder, A., Nonaka, C., Qin, G.-Y., Renk, T., & Ruppert, J.
- Venue
- Physical Review C
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2009-02-05
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0556-2813 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-490X
- OpenAlex
- W1989195104
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic comparison of jet energy-loss schemes in a realistic hydrodynamic medium. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevc.79.024901
- The paper
- Bass, S. A., Gale, C., Majumder, A., Nonaka, C., Qin, G.-Y., Renk, T., & Ruppert, J. (2009). Systematic comparison of jet energy-loss schemes in a realistic hydrodynamic medium. Physical Review C. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.79.024901
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.