1 / 7

Comparison of energy loss formalisms

Comparison of energy loss formalisms. Marco van Leeuwen, UU. TECHQM meeting LBNL, 15-16 Dec 2008. TECHQM `Brick Problem’. Idea: define a few ‘model systems’ to compare different calculational approaches. Fixed-length homogeneous ‘brick’ of QGP: L = 2 fm, L = 5 fm.

meryl
Download Presentation

Comparison of energy loss formalisms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of energy loss formalisms Marco van Leeuwen, UU TECHQM meeting LBNL, 15-16 Dec 2008

  2. TECHQM `Brick Problem’ Idea: define a few ‘model systems’ to compare different calculational approaches Fixed-length homogeneous ‘brick’ of QGP: L = 2 fm, L = 5 fm Explore parton energy dependence: E = 10 GeV, E = 100 GeV (quarks) Compare models at ‘comparable phenomenology’, i.e. fixed DE/E (0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4) Calculate P(DE) and P(Ngluon) (partial) results available for: WHDG/GLV, ASW/BDMPS, AMY, Higher Twist, YaJEM Note: not all models calculate P(DE)

  3. Comparing P(DE) ASW-GLV and WHDG-GLV are different Due to treatment of DE/E →1? Note importance of P(0) Continuous part of P(DE) more sharply peaked for WHDG-GLV Are these differences significant?

  4. L-dependence Increase L at constant <DE/E>: continuous part increases; peak at small values Difference WHDG-ASW persists

  5. Energy-dependence Increase energy: reduces P(0), importance of DE/E → 1 Difference WHDG and ASW reduced at 100 GeV?

  6. Towards phenomenology: fragmentation functions Artefact in KKP parametrisation Simple folding (only ‘loss term’): E = 10 GeV, WHDG steeper than ASW (reflects different P(DE) E = 100 GeV: shapes similar, normalisation difference?

  7. Next steps Immediate future: • Compare to other formalisms (Higher twist, AMY, YaJEM) • Compare at same medium density? • Calculate RAA, IAA, g-jet • Use more realistic geometry Strategy towards future: To discuss in TECHQM and/or

More Related