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

TL;DR

This paper systematically compares three jet energy-loss models within a consistent hydrodynamic medium to understand their differences and similarities in describing experimental data.

Contribution

It provides a direct comparison of three jet quenching schemes using identical medium evolution and parameters, highlighting their differences in predictions and transport coefficients.

Findings

All models can fit $R_{AA}$ data with adjustable parameters.

Slight differences in centrality and azimuthal dependence predictions.

Transport coefficient $t q$ varies significantly among models.

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 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.