6533b81ffe1ef96bd1277b91

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Systematic Comparison of Jet Energy-Loss Schemes in a realistic hydrodynamic medium

Jörg RuppertSteffen A. BassGuang You QinThorsten RenkThorsten RenkAbhijit MajumderChiho NonakaCharles Gale

subject

PhysicsNuclear and High Energy PhysicsNuclear Theory010308 nuclear & particles physicsTransport coefficientFOS: Physical sciencesFluid mechanics01 natural sciencesNuclear Theory (nucl-th)High Energy Physics - PhenomenologyDistribution functionHigh Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)Quantum mechanics0103 physical sciencesQuark–gluon plasmaBibliographyAngular dependenceTwistNuclear Experiment (nucl-ex)010306 general physicsCentralityNuclear Experiment

description

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 approach (HT) and a scheme based on the approach of Arnold-Moore-Yaffe (AMY). In this comparison, an identical medium evolution will be utilized for all three approaches: not only does this entail the use of the same realistic three-dimensional relativistic fluid dynamics (RFD) simulation, but also includes the use of identical initial parton-distribution functions and final fragmentation functions. We are, thus, in a unique position, not only to isolate fundamental differences between the various approaches, but also to make rigorous calculations for different experimental measurements using "state of the art" components. All three approaches are reduced to a version which contains only one free tunable parameter, this is then related to the well known transport parameter $\hat{q}$. We find that the parameters of all three calculations can be adjusted to provide a good description of inclusive data on $R_{AA}$ versus transverse momentum. However, we do observe slight differences in their predictions for the centrality and azimuthal angular dependence of $R_{AA}$ vs. $p_T$. We also note that the value of the transport coefficient $\hat{q}$ in the three approaches to describe the data differs significantly.

https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.0808.0908