Paper detail

A comparison of various measures for the average transport coefficient qhat

Jet quenching, i.e. the suppression of high transverse momentum P_T hadron production in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions is among the most striking experimental signatures of bulk medium formation. Efforts with the aim of extracting quantitative information about the bulk medium from the measured suppression mainly focus on the extraction of an averaged transport coefficient <qhat> as a measure of the medium jet quenching power, with the underlying assumption that <qhat> is a meaningful quantity to make comparisons both among different models and between models and data. In this note, the main uncertainties associated with the extraction of <qhat> from model fits to data are briefly reviewed before the notion of an average transport coefficient itself is investigated. It is shown in a case study that the choice of a meaningful average is far from unique and that different well-motivated definitions of averages lead not only to differences in the outcome of about a factor four, but also in a different change of <qhat> with collision centrality. This casts some doubt on the idea that condensing the information about jet-medium interactions into a single average parameter is a meaningful procedure.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.