Hard Probes 20061
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Overcoming Fragility
William HorowitzColumbia University
June 14, 2006
With many thanks to Simon Wicks, Azfar Adil, Magdalena Djordjevic, and Miklos Gyulassy. Also thanks to all of you with
whom I had many enlightening discussions.
Hard Probes 20062
6/6/06 William Horowitz
The Big Picture
• Our ultimate goal: jet tomography• Requires:
– Theoretical understanding of underlying physics (esp. quenching mechanisms)
– Mapping from the controlling parameter of the theory to the medium density
– Sensitivity in the model + data for the measurement used
Hard Probes 20063
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Reframing the Debate
• Experimental measurements and theoretical calculations are hard
• We must be careful not to oversimplify the issues involved
Hard Probes 20064
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Theory Perspective:The Devil’s in the Details • Pocket asymptotic formulas don’t
work for RHIC– –
• One cannot be assured that “reasonable,” but unjustified Lfixed will reproduce the full calculation– RHIC is not a brick
Hard Probes 20065
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Correct Geometry is Difficult: DGLV+El+Geom
– Convolve Elastic with Inelastic energy loss fluctuations
– Include path length fluctuations in diffuse nuclear geometry • Woods-Saxon base nuclear density
• Production ~ TAA; Medium ~ part
• 1+1D Bjorken expansion
– Separate calculations with BT and TG collisional formulae provide a measure of the elastic theoretical uncertainty
Hard Probes 20066
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Length Definitions– Define a mapping from the line integral
through the realistic medium to the theoretical block
– where
– Then
Hard Probes 20067
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Effective Length, Leff
– Leff given by the one fixed length that best reproduces the full fluctuating geometry calculation (if it exists)
– Only found AFTER full computation
S. Wicks, WH, M. Gyulassy, and M. Djordjevic, nucl-th/0512076
Hard Probes 20068
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Effective Length, Leff (cont’d)
S. Wicks, WH, M. Gyulassy, and M. Djordjevic, nucl-th/0512076
• Comparison of the full distribution of fluctuating lengths and the flavor-dependent Leff
Hard Probes 20069
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Pion RAA
• Is it a good measurement for tomography?
– Yes: small experimental error
• Claim: we should not be so immediately dis-missive of the pion RAA as a tomographic tool
– Maybe not: some models appear “fragile”
Hard Probes 200610
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Fragility: A Poor Descriptor
• All energy loss models with a formation time saturate at some Rmin
AA > 0
• The questions asked should be quantitative : – Where is Rdata
AA compared to RminAA?
– How much can one change a model’s controlling parameter so that it still agrees with a measurement within error?
– Define sensitivity, s = min. param/max. param that predicts the data within error
Hard Probes 200611
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Different Models have Different Sensitivities to the Pion RAA
• GLV: s < 2
• Higher Twist:s < 2
• DGLV+El+Geom:s < 2
• AWS:s ~ 3 WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in
preparation
Hard Probes 200612
6/6/06 William Horowitz
A Closer Look at AWS
K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A747:511:529 (2005)
A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38:461-474 (2005)
The lack of sensitivity needs to be more closely examined because (a) unrealistic geometry (hard cylinders) and no expansion and (b) no expansion shown against older data (whose error bars have subsequently shrunk
(a) (b)
Hard Probes 200613
6/6/06 William Horowitz
– Surface Emission: one phrase explanation of fragility• All models become surface emitting with infinite E
loss
– Surface Bias occurs in all energy loss models• Expansion + Realistic geometry => model probes a
large portion of medium
Surface Bias vs. Surface Emission
A. Majumder, HP2006 S. Wicks, WH, M. Gyulassy, and M. Djordjevic, nucl-th/0512076
Hard Probes 200614
6/6/06 William Horowitz
A Closer Look at AWS
– Difficult to draw conclusions on inherent surface bias in AWS from this for three reasons: • No Bjorken expansion• Glue and light quark
contributions not disentangled
• Plotted against Linput (complicated mapping from Linput to physical distance)
A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38:461-474 (2005)
Hard Probes 200615
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Conclusions
• RHIC is hard
• Lengths are difficult– Currently a theoretical systematic
error from mapping medium to brick
– Leff must only be used a posteriori
Hard Probes 200616
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Conclusions (cont’d)
• Fragility is not a useful descriptor for a theoretical model + data– The important quantifier is the
sensitivity of the model to changes in its controlling parameter around the data: is jet tomography possible?
• Pion RAA cannot be immediately dismissed as a useful tomographic tool
Hard Probes 200617
6/6/06 William Horowitz
Backup
Hard Probes 200618
6/6/06 William Horowitz
WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation
Hard Probes 200619
6/6/06 William Horowitz
S. Wicks, WH, M. Gyulassy, and M. Djordjevic, nucl-th/0512076
Hard Probes 200620
6/6/06 William Horowitz
WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation
Hard Probes 200621
6/6/06 William Horowitz
LHC Predictions
WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation
Hard Probes 200622
6/6/06 William Horowitz
K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A747:511:529 (2005)
A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38:461-474 (2005)
Hard Probes 200623
6/6/06 William Horowitz
WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation
Hard Probes 200624
6/6/06 William Horowitz
WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation
Hard Probes 200625
6/6/06 William Horowitz
N. Armesto, M. Cacciari, A. Dainese, C. A. Salgado, U. A. Wiedemann, hep-ph-0511257
A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38:461-474 (2005)
Hard Probes 200626
6/6/06 William Horowitz
DGLV+El+Geom: Widths
– The whole distribution is important: , but el < rad
S. Wicks, WH, M. Gyulassy, and M. Djordjevic, nucl-th/0512076