Comparing energy loss models Marco van Leeuwen Utrecht University What have we learned from the TECHQM brick problem? With many contributions from TEHCQM.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
W. A. Horowitz Quark Matter 2005 A Promising Solution to the Elliptic Quench Puzzle at RHIC William A. Horowitz Columbia University August 4-5, 2005.
Advertisements

Effects of minijet degradation on hadron observables in heavy-ion collisions Lilin Zhu Sichuan University QPT2013, Chengdu.
A common description of jet-quenching and elliptic flow within a pQCD transport model Oliver Fochler H-QM Graduate Day arXiv:
M. Djordjevic 1 Heavy quark energy loss puzzle at RHIC Magdalena Djordjevic The Ohio State University.
High-p T spectra and correlations from Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions in STAR Marco van Leeuwen, LBNL for the STAR collaboration.
Andrej Ficnar Columbia University INT 10-2A June 25, 2010 High order DGLV Monte Carlo and q models of jet quenching ^
#: 1... and your jet energy loss calculation? What drives you? aka Perturbative jet energy loss mechanisms: Learning from RHIC, extrapolating to LHC Simon.
Luan Cheng (Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University) I. Introduction II. Interaction Potential with Flow III. Flow Effects on Light Quark.
Single & Dihadron Suppression at RHIC and LHC Xin-Nian Wang Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Last call for prediction for LHC, CERN, May 29-June 2,2007.
Centrality-dependent pt spectra of Direct photons at RHIC F.M. Liu 刘复明 Central China Normal University, China T. Hirano University of Tokyo, Japan K.Werner.
Collective Flow Effects and Energy Loss in ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions Zhe Xu USTC, Hefei, July 11, 2008 with A. El, O. Fochler, C. Greiner.
Radiative energy loss Marco van Leeuwen, Utrecht University.
Photons and Dileptons at LHC Rainer Fries Texas A&M University & RIKEN BNL Heavy Ion Collisions at the LHC: Last Call for Predictions CERN, June 1, 2007.
Status of the TECHQM ‘brick problem’ Marco van Leeuwen, Utrecht University.
Comparative Study of Jet-Quenching Schemes Working towards a unified approach in Jet-modification A. Majumder, Duke University Thanks to: N. Armesto, S.
M. Djordjevic 1 Effect of dynamical QCD medium on radiative heavy quark energy loss Magdalena Djordjevic The Ohio State University.
M. Djordjevic 1 Heavy quark energy loss in a dynamical QCD medium Magdalena Djordjevic The Ohio State University M. Djordjevic and U. Heinz, arXiv:
Marco van Leeuwen, Marta Verweij, Utrecht University Energy loss in a realistic geometry.
Enke Wang (Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University) with A. Majumder, X.-N. Wang I. Introduction II.Quark Recombination and Parton Fragmentation.
A NLO Analysis on Fragility of Dihadron Tomography in High Energy AA Collisions I.Introduction II.Numerical analysis on single hadron and dihadron production.
What can we learn from/about QCD energy loss? (From an experimentalists point of view) Marco van Leeuwen, Utrecht University TECHQM meeting, 6-10 July.
1 Nov. 15 QM2006 Shanghai J.H. Lee (BNL) Nuclear Induced Particle Suppression at Large-x F at RHIC J.H. Lee Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Precision Probes for Hot QCD Matter Rainer Fries Texas A&M University & RIKEN BNL QCD Workshop, Washington DC December 15, 2006.
7/7/09 William Horowitz WHDG Brick and Comparing WHDG to ASW-SH William Horowitz The Ohio State University July 7, 2009 With many thanks to Brian Cole,
11/15/06 William Horowitz 1 LHC Predictions 1 from an extended theory 2 with Elastic, Inelastic, and Path Length Fluctuating Jet Energy Loss William Horowitz.
6/6/06William Horowitz Hard Probes Overcoming Fragility William Horowitz Columbia University June 14, 2006 With many thanks to Simon Wicks, Azfar.
Jet quenching and direct photon production F.M. Liu 刘复明 Central China Normal University, China T. Hirano 平野哲文 University of Tokyo, Japan K.Werner University.
1 Search for the Effects of the QCD Color Factor in High-Energy Collisions at RHIC Bedanga Mohanty LBNL  Motivation  Color Factors  Search for Color.
Luan Cheng (Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University) I.Introduction II. Potential Model with Flow III.Flow Effects on Parton Energy Loss.
Jet energy loss at RHIC and LHC including collisional and radiative and geometric fluctuations Simon Wicks, QM2006 Work done with Miklos Gyulassy, William.
Hard probes of the Quark Gluon Plasma Part 1: Introduction, R AA Marco van Leeuwen, Nikhef & Utrecht University Lectures at: Quark Gluon Plasma and Heavy.
Jet Physics in ALICE Mercedes López Noriega - CERN for the ALICE Collaboration Hot Quarks 2006 Villasimius, Sardinia - Italy.
1 Jet quenching, Nov hep-ph/ ; CERN-TH
M. Djordjevic 1 Theoretical predictions of jet suppression: a systematic comparison with RHIC and LHC data Magdalena Djordjevic Institute of Physics Belgrade,
Ralf Averbeck Stony Brook University Hot Quarks 2004 Taos, New Mexico, July 19-24, 2004 for the Collaboration Open Heavy Flavor Measurements with PHENIX.
Cheng LuanInstitute of Particle Physics,CCNU1 Jet Quenching in 1+1 Dimension Expanding Medium with Chemical Nonequilibrium Inst. of Particle Phys., CCNU.
Direct photon production in heavy-ion collisions Ben-Wei Zhang T-16, Los Alamos National Laboratory Collaborator: Ivan Vitev.
Radiative heavy quark energy loss in QCD matter Magdalena Djordjevic and Miklos Gyulassy Columbia University.
Third TECHQM Collaboration Meeting, CERN July 6-10, 2009 Xin-Nian Wang Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory The Brick Problem in High-Twist Approximation.
Parton energy loss Marco van Leeuwen. 2 Hard probes of QCD matter Use ‘quasi-free’ partons from hard scatterings to probe ‘quasi-thermal’ QCD matter Interactions.
Comparing energy loss phenomenology Marco van Leeuwen Utrecht University.
Comparison of energy loss formalisms Marco van Leeuwen, UU TECHQM meeting LBNL, Dec 2008.
Heavy Quark Energy Loss with Twist Expansion Approach Ben-Wei Zhang Institute of Particle Physics Central China Normal Univeristy CCAST, Beijing --- Augest.
Elastic, Inelastic and Path Length Fluctuations in Jet Tomography Simon Wicks Hard Probes 2006 Work done with William Horowitz, Magdalena Djordjevic and.
Enke Wang (Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University) I. Introduction II. Ineraction Potential with Flow III.Flow Effects on Light Quark.
L. Apolinário, N. Armesto, J. G. Milhano, C. Salgado TOWARDS JET CALCULUS IN A QCD MEDIUM.
Enke Wang (Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University) I.Jet Quenching in QCD-based Model II.Jet Quenching in High-Twist pQCD III.Jet Tomography.
QM04 1/12/04M. Djordjevic 1 Heavy quark energy loss-Applications to RHIC Magdalena Djordjevic and Miklos Gyulassy Columbia University The Ter-Mikayelian.
12/16/08 William Horowitz TECHQM 2 nd Workshop, LBNL 1 DGLV : M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, Nucl.Phys.A733, 265 (2004) [nucl-th/ ] WHDG : S. Wicks,
Heavy quark energy loss in hot and dense nuclear matter Shanshan Cao In Collaboration with G.Y. Qin, S.A. Bass and B. Mueller Duke University.
M. Djordjevic 1 Heavy quark energy loss in a dynamical QCD medium Magdalena Djordjevic The Ohio State University M. Djordjevic and U. Heinz, arXiv:
M. Djordjevic 1 Hard probes at RHIC and LHC Magdalena Djordjevic Ohio State University.
M. Djordjevic 1 Light and heavy flavor phenomenology at RHIC and LHC Magdalena Djordjevic Institute of Physics Belgrade, University of Belgrade.
M. Djordjevic 1 Suppression and energy loss in Quark-Gluon Plasma Magdalena Djordjevic Institute of Physics Belgrade, University of Belgrade.
Parton showers as a source of energy-momentum deposition and the implications for jet observables Bryon Neufeld, LANL 1Neufeld Based on the preprint R.B.
Duke University 野中 千穂 Hadron production in heavy ion collision: Fragmentation and recombination in Collaboration with R. J. Fries (Duke), B. Muller (Duke),
Jet Quenching of Massive Quark in Nuclear Medium Ben-Wei Zhang Institute of Particle Physics Central China Normal Univeristy ICHEP, Beijing --- Augest.
Prospects for understanding energy loss in hot nuclear matter
Probing QGP-medium interactions
F. Dominguez, CM, A. Mueller, B. Xiao and B. Wu, arXiv:
High-pT results from ALICE
Status of the TECHQM ‘brick problem’
Energy loss in a realistic geometry
Theory Update on Energy Loss
Comparing energy loss models
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
of Hadronization in Nuclei
Energy Loss in the Hot QCD Brick I
Uncertainties and Consistency (?) in pQCD and AdS/CFT Jet Physics
Modified Fragmentation Function in Strong Interaction Matter
Presentation transcript:

Comparing energy loss models Marco van Leeuwen Utrecht University What have we learned from the TECHQM brick problem? With many contributions from TEHCQM collaborators

2 Flashback to Hard Probes 2006 It was becoming clear that GLV, ASW, AMY require different densities to describe the R AA measurements at RHIC and, after discussion, it also became clear that nobody really knew why!

3 Energy loss formalisms I PHENIX, arXiv: , J. Nagle WWND08 PQM = 13.2 GeV 2 /fm ^ WHDG dN g /dy = ZOWW  0 = 1.9 GeV/fm AMY  s = GLV, AMY: T = MeV BDMPS: T ~ 1000 MeV Large difference in medium density: Different calculations use different geometries – not clear what dominates

4 Energy loss formalisms II Bass et al, PRC79, ASW: HT: AMY: AMY: T ~ 400 MeV Compare 3 formalisms with `same’ Hydro geometry: Different formalisms give different energy loss using same geometry Why: Different physics implemented? Or `technical’ differences? Differences indicate theoretical uncertainty? or: Some of the formalisms are ‘wrong’?

5 The Brick Problem Gluon(s) Compare outgoing gluon, quark distributions - Same density - Same suppression Compare energy-loss in a well-defined model system: Fixed length L = 2, 5 fm Density T, q Quark, E = 10, 20 GeV TECHQM: Theory-Experiment Collaboration on Hot Quark Matter and interpret/understand the differences Two types of comparison:

6 Four formalisms Hard Thermal Loops (AMY) –Dynamical (HTL) medium –Single gluon spectrum: BDMPS-Z like path integral –No vacuum radiation Multiple soft scattering (BDMPS-Z, ASW-MS) –Static scattering centers –Gaussian approximation for momentum kicks –Full LPM interference and vacuum radiation Opacity expansion ((D)GLV, ASW-SH) –Static scattering centers, Yukawa potential –Expansion in opacity L/ (N=1, interference between two centers default) –Interference with vacuum radiation Higher Twist (Guo, Wang, Majumder) –Medium characterised by higher twist matrix elements –Radiation kernel similar to GLV –Vacuum radiation in DGLAP evolution Multiple gluon emission Fokker-Planck rate equations Poisson ansatz (independent emission) DGLAP evolution

7 Large differences in medium density for R 7 = 0.25 Some brick results Outgoing quark spectrum T=300 MeV R AA > P 0  Difference between formalisms sizable even in simple geometry

8 Large angle radiation Emitted gluon distribution Opacity expansion k T < k Calculated gluon spectrum extends to large k  at small k Outside kinematic limits GLV, ASW, HT cut this off ‘by hand’ Estimate uncertainty by varying cut; sizeable effect Gluon momentum k Gluon perp momentum k 

9 Limitations of soft collinear approach Soft: Collinear: Need to extend results to full phase space to calculate observables (especially at RHIC) Soft approximation not problematic: For large E, most radiation is soft Also:  > E  full absorption Cannot enforce collinear limit: Small ,   k T always a part of phase space with large angles Calculations are done in soft collinear approximation:

10 Opacity expansions GLV and ASW-SH x + ~ x E in soft collinear limit, but not at large angles Different large angle cut-offs: k T <  = x E E k T <  = 2 x + E Blue: k Tmax = xE Red: k Tmax = 2x(1-x)E Single-gluon spectrum Blue: m g = 0 Red: m g =  /√2 Horowitz and Cole, PRC81, Single-gluon spectrum Different definitions of x: ASW: GLV: Factor ~2 uncertainty from large-angle cut-off Horowitz and Cole, PRC81,

11 HT and GLV Single-gluon kernel GLV and HT similar HT: kernel diverges for k T  0  √(E/L) GLV: HT: GLV similar structure, phase factor  However HT assumes k T >> q T, so no explicit integral over q T GLV HT gives more radiation than GLV

12 Opacity expansion vs multiple soft Salgado, Wiedemann, PRD68, Different limits: SH (N=1 OE): interference between neighboring scattering centers MS: ‘all orders in opacity’, gaussian scattering approximation Quantitative differences sizable OE and MS related via path integral formalism Two differences at the same time

13 AMY, BDMPS, and ASW-MS Single-gluon kernel from AMY based on scattering rate: BMPS-Z use harmonic oscillator: BDMPS-Z: Salgado, Wiedemann, PRD68, Finite-L effects: Vacuum-medium interference + large-angle cut-off

14 AMY and BDMPS Using based on AMY-HTL scattering potential L=2 fm Single gluon spectraL=5 fm Single gluon spectra AMY: no large angle cut-off + sizeable difference at large  at L=2 fm

15 L-dependence; regions of validity? Emission rate vs  (=L) Caron-Huot, Gale, arXiv: AMY, small L, no L 2, boundary effect Full = numerical solution of Zakharov path integral = ‘best we know’ GLV N=1 Too much radiation at large L (no interference between scatt centers) H.O = ASW/BDMPS like (harmonic oscillator) Too little radiation at small L (ignores ‘hard tail’ of scatt potential) E = 16 GeV k = 3 GeV T = 200 MeV

16 Single gluon spectra Same temperature: AMY > OE > ASW-MS L = 2 fm L = 5 fm Size of difference depends on L, but hierarchy stays

17 Outgoing quark spectra Same temperature: T = 300 T: suppression AMY > OE > ASW-MS Note importance of P 0

18 Outgoing quark spectra Same suppression: R 7 = 0.25 At R 7 = 0.25: P 0 small for ASW-MS P 0 = 0 for AMY by definition

19 Conclusion AMY gives most radiation –No L 2 effect at small L –No large-angle cut Opacity expansions (GLV/ASW-SH) intermediate –Good at short lengths (L < 2-3 fm) –Likely too much at large L Multiple-soft scattering radiates least –Too much suppression at short L ? Higher Twist more difficult to compare –Gives more radiation than GLV at single-gluon level Current calculations: Large uncertainties associated with large-angle radiation at low to moderate x We now know where the differences between formalisms come from ! Unfortunately: differences not dominated by physics, but by approximations

20 What next ? Use improved methods: full path-integral, higher order opacity Need to improve treatment of large angle radiation (recoil?) –Some ideas exist, e.g. use MC with LPM + full matrix elements Systematically explore sensitivity to medium model (scattering potential) In preparation: TECHQM publication with more detailed report Plenty of room of original work ! Some suggested future directions: Thanks to all in TECHQM who contributed

21 Extra slides

22 L=2 fm, T=250, 350 MeV GLV, HT, ASW-MS similar AMY: large suppression L=2 fm, T=250, 350 MeV AMY, HT larger suppression than OE, MS Fragmentation function Majumder, van Leeuwen, arXIv:

23 Qhat vs T Some leeway in calculation of q from T:(N f = 0) or

24 X+ vs xE

25 TECHQM Forum to discuss comparison between theory and experiment in areas where there is a potential significant quantitative understanding Two subgroups: –Parton energy loss –Elliptic flow/Hydro Workshops/meetings: –BNL May 2008 –LBL Dec 2008 –CERN July 2009 –BNL (with CATHIE) Dec Theory-Experiment Collaboration on Hot Quark Matter This talk is about Parton Energy loss

26 Single gluon spectra Same temperatureSame suppression: OE (AMY?) peaked at low  ASW-MS not so temperature: AMY > OE > ASW-MS

27 Conclusion Tentative summary: –AMY shows strongest suppression Lack of vacuum radiation? –ASW-MS: smallest suppression Soft scattering or interference or both? –OE, HT similar, between MS and AMY Large uncertainties associated with large angle radiation in all formalisms Differences between formalisms large at single-gluon level R AA probably not sensitive to details of multi-gluon treatment Thanks to all in TECHQM who contributed ! In preparation: TECHQM publication with more detailed report