Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

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 access
Bass, Steffen A., Gale, Charles, Majumder, Abhijit, Nonaka, Chiho, Qin, Guang-You, Renk, Thorsten, Ruppert, Jörg·2009·Physical Review C

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevc.79.024901

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Bass, S. A., Gale, C., Majumder, A., Nonaka, C., Qin, G.-Y., Renk, T., & Ruppert, J.
Venue
Physical Review C
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.