1: %

2: %              v2 

3: %

4: %      l.e. March, 11 2002, 

5: %

6: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: %\usepackage{showkeys}

9: \textwidth 17cm

10: \textheight 23cm

11: \voffset=-2cm

12: \hoffset=-1.7cm

13: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.9}

14: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

15: 

16: % marginal note

17: \newcommand{\NB}[1]{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.5}

18: \marginpar{{\small #1 }}}

19: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.9}}

20: 

21: \def\eq#1{{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}}

22: \def\fig#1{{Fig.~\ref{#1}}}

23: \def\re#1{{Ref.~\cite{#1}}}

24: \def\order#1{\mathcal{O}{(#1)}}

25: %

26: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

27: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

28: %

29: \newcommand{\beqar}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}

30: \newcommand{\eeqar}{\end{eqnarray}}

31: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

32: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray*}}

33: %

34: \newcommand{\bas}{\bar{\alpha}_s}

35: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}

36: \newcommand{\un}{\underline}

37: \newcommand{\f}{\varphi}

38: %

39: \newcommand{\stackeven}[2]{{{}_{\displaystyle{#1}}\atop\displaystyle{#2}}}

40: \newcommand{\lsim}{\stackeven{<}{\sim}}

41: \newcommand{\gsim}{\stackeven{>}{\sim}}

42: %

43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

44: % ABBREVIATED JOURNAL NAMES: "number (year) page"

45: %

46: \def\ap#1#2#3{     {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

47: \def\arnps#1#2#3{  {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

48: \def\npb#1#2#3{    {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1} (#2) #3}

49: \def\npa#1#2#3{    {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf A#1} (#2) #3}

50: \def\plb#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1} (#2) #3} 

51: \def\prd#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1} (#2) #3}

52: \def\prc#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf C#1} (#2) #3}

53: \def\prep#1#2#3{   {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

54: \def\prl#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

55: \def\ptp#1#2#3{    {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

56: \def\rmp#1#2#3{    {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

57: \def\zpc#1#2#3{    {\it Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1} (#2) #3}

58: \def\epjc#1#2#3{    {\it Eur.Phys.J. }{\bf C#1} (#2) #3}

59: \def\mpla#1#2#3{   {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1} (#2) #3}

60: \def\nc#1#2#3{     {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

61: \def\yf#1#2#3{     {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

62: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{   {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

63: \def\jetp#1#2#3{   {\it Sov. Phys. }{JETP }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

64: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{  {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

65: \def\epjc#1#2#3{   {\it Eur. Phys. J.}{\bf C#1} (#2) #3}

66: \def\jmp#1#2#3{    {\it J. Math. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

67: \def\ppsjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

68: \def\ppjetp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. Phys. JETP }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

69: \def\ppjetpl#1#2#3{{\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

70: \def\zetf#1#2#3{   {\it Zh. ETF }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

71: \def\cmp#1#2#3{    {\it Comm. Math. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

72: \def\cpc#1#2#3{    {\it Comp. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

73: \def\ib#1#2#3{     {\it ibid. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

74: \def\jpg#1#2#3{    {\it J. Phys}. {\bf G#1} (#2) #3}

75: %

76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: \begin{document}

78: \title {{\bf Elliptic Flow from Minijet Production~\vspace*{3mm} in Heavy

79:     Ion Collisions\\[1cm] }}

80: \author{

81: {\bf Yuri V. Kovchegov\thanks{e-mail: yuri@phys.washington.edu}~$\,

82:   ^a$ and

83: \quad  Kirill L. Tuchin\thanks{e-mail: tuchin@phys.washington.edu}~$\, ^b$

84: } \\[10mm]

85: {\it\small $^a$Department of Physics, University of Washington, Box 

86: 351560}\\

87: {\it\small Seattle, WA 98195}\\[0.5cm]

88: {\it\small $^b$Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of 

89: Washington, Box 351550}\\

90: {\it\small Seattle, WA 98195}

91: }

92: 

93: \date{March, 2002}

94: \maketitle 

95: \thispagestyle{empty}

96: 

97: \begin{abstract}

98: We calculate the contribution to the elliptic flow observable $v_2$

99: from two--particle correlations in minijet production in

100: ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions. We use a minijet production

101: cross section derived in a model inspired by saturation approach to

102: high energy scattering. Resulting differential elliptic flow $v_2

103: (p_T)$ is an increasing function of $p_T$ for transverse momenta below

104: the saturation scale $Q_s$. At higher transverse momenta ($p_T \, > \,

105: Q_s$) differential flow stops growing and becomes approximately

106: constant, reproducing the elliptic flow saturation data reported by

107: STAR. The centrality dependence of the minijet contribution to $v_2$

108: is also in good agreement with the data.

109: \end{abstract}

110: \thispagestyle{empty}

111: \begin{flushright}

112: \vspace{-19cm}

113: NT@UW--02--005\\

114: INT--PUB--02--32\\

115: %\today

116: \end{flushright}

117: 

118: \newpage

119: 

120: \setcounter{page}{1}

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: %    

123: \section{Introduction}

124: 

125: Ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions provide us interesting new

126: information on QCD under extreme conditions. Different stages of the

127: collisions probe QCD in different regimes: early times are likely to

128: be characterized by strong saturated gluonic fields \cite{glrmq,mv}

129: while creation of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) is an attractive

130: possibility in the later stages of the collisions \cite{qgp}. To be

131: able to understand the experimental data generated in the collisions

132: one has to learn to disentangle between the contributions of these two

133: (in principle) different physical processes to heavy ion observables.

134: 

135: The strong quasi-classical gluon fields are produced in the early

136: stages of the collisions due to high transverse densities of color

137: charges in the wave functions of the Lorentz-contracted nuclei

138: \cite{mv,yuri,jklw,claa,kv,yuaa}. The typical color charge density is

139: characterized by the {\it saturation} scale $Q_s^2$, which grows with

140: nuclear atomic number and with energy of the collision

141: \cite{glrmq,mv,bk,satevol,jimwlk}.  While being coherent over large

142: longitudinal distances these quasi-classical fields have a rather

143: short coherence length in the transverse direction, of the order of

144: the inverse saturation scale $1/Q_s$. Saturation-inspired models have

145: been quite successful in describing the emerging RHIC data on rapidity

146: and centrality dependence of the total charged multiplicity of the

147: produced particles \cite{dn,dgn}.

148: 

149: In the later stages of the collisions gluons and quarks generated by

150: the quasi-classical fields are likely to reach kinetic, and, possibly,

151: chemical thermal equilibrium, producing the quark-gluon plasma (QGP)

152: \cite{qgp,muller,lattice,bmss}. To be able to study this new state of

153: matter one should be able to distinguish the contributions to physical

154: observables of the collective phenomena due to QGP from the effects of

155: strong gluonic fields of the early stages. Ideally one should try to

156: construct observables which would be sensitive only to one type of

157: physics while being independent of the other. An example of such

158: observables are the long range rapidity correlations predicted in

159: \cite{klm}, which are almost entirely due to the dynamics of initial 

160: conditions.

161: 

162: In this paper we would like to study the contribution of the

163: quasi-classical gluonic fields to the elliptic flow observable $v_2$,

164: defined as the second Fourier moment of the azimuthal momentum

165: distribution of the produced particles \cite{elfl}. Elliptic flow

166: reflects anisotropy of the transverse momentum distribution of the

167: produced particles with respect to reaction plane. There has been a

168: large amount of elliptic flow data produced in the heavy ion

169: collisions at SPS \cite{na49,wa98} and RHIC

170: \cite{pho,star,phenix}. While the majority of these data are in good 

171: agreement with hydrodynamic simulations \cite{huov,teaney}, the

172: emerging new STAR data on differential elliptic flow $v_2 (p_T)$ at

173: high $p_T$ seems to deviate from hydrodynamic predictions

174: \cite{starsn}. Instead of continuing to increase with $p_T$ the flow variable

175: $v_2 (p_T)$ saturates to approximately a constant above $p_T \, = \,

176: 1.5 \, \mbox{GeV}$ \cite{starsn}. The data goes up to $p_T \, \approx

177: \, 4.5 \, \mbox{GeV}$ \cite{starsn}. It is natural to expect that at such

178: high momenta the hard (perturbative) physics should be responsible for

179: the underlying strong interactions dynamics\footnote{Very recently an

180: attempt was made in \cite{tv} to explain the high-$p_T$ elliptic flow

181: using pure classical gluon fields of the nuclei \cite{claa} yielding

182: the elliptic flow which is too small to explain the data.}. This led

183: the authors of \cite{gvw} to propose a model of interplay of soft and

184: hard interactions in $v_2$: while the low momentum part of $v_2$ was

185: still described by hydrodynamic calculations the high $p_T$ part was

186: described by medium-induced radiative energy loss of partons

187: \cite{glvbdmps} which would generate azimuthal anisotropy in momentum

188: space due to coordinate space anisotropy of the overlap region. The

189: resulting flow observable would saturate at some relatively large

190: $p_T$ and then would decrease with increasing $p_T$. 

191: 

192: Here we are going to propose a model of a non-flow particle production

193: mechanism generating an elliptic flow observable $v_2$ which would go

194: to a constant at large $p_T$ and would stay approximately constant as

195: $p_T$ increases. Let us picture particle production at the early

196: stages of a nuclear collision at high energy. In the first

197: approximation high-$p_T$ particles are produced independent of each

198: other. We can illustrate this in the framework of the saturation

199: approach to nuclear collisions: there the gluon fields are coherent

200: over very short transverse distances of the order of $1/Q_s$, with

201: $Q_s \, \gg \,

202: \Lambda_{QCD}$. The high energy wave function of a large nucleus can

203: be viewed in the transverse plane as consisting of many independent

204: gluon fields each of them occupying a transverse area $1/Q_s^2$. (In

205: the longitudinal direction each classical field is of course coherent

206: over the whole nucleus \cite{mv} and this way the nucleus can be

207: considered as ``sliced'' into narrow pipes with diameter $1/Q_s$.) 

208: Therefore a collision with the overlap transverse area of the two

209: nuclei $S_\perp$ could be pictured as at least $S_\perp Q_s^2$

210: independent (sub)collisions. For sufficiently central heavy ion

211: collisions $S_\perp Q_s^2 \, \sim \, N_{part} \, \gg

212: \, 1$, where $N_{part}$ is the number of nucleons participating in the

213: collision. At the leading order in this large parameter $S_\perp

214: Q_s^2$ the two-particle multiplicity distribution factorizes into a

215: product of two single-particle multiplicity distributions. Correlation

216: between a pair of particles in the perturbative production mechanism

217: happens when both particles are produced in the same subcollision,

218: i.e., at the same impact parameter. Therefore these correlations

219: appear at the subleading in $S_\perp Q_s^2$ order and are suppressed

220: by a power of $S_\perp Q_s^2$. We are going to argue below that this

221: does not prevent them from significantly contributing to elliptic flow

222: observable.

223: 

224: 

225: The standard definition of differential elliptic flow is

226: \cite{vz,pv,ollie1,ollie2,bdopv}

227: \beq\label{v21}

228: v_2 (p_T) \, = \, \left< \, e^{ 2 i (\phi_{p_T} - \Phi_R)} \, \right> \, = \,

229: \left< \, \cos 2 (\phi_{p_T} - \Phi_R) \, \right>

230: \eeq

231: where $\phi_{p_T}$ is the azimuthal angle of the produced particle

232: with the value of transverse momentum $p_T$, $\Phi_R$ is the azimuthal

233: angle of the reaction plane and the brackets denote statistical

234: averaging over different events which leaves non-zero only the

235: contribution of the cosine in \eq{v21}. The reaction plane is

236: determined by averaging over particles produced in a heavy ion

237: collision with certain weights designed to optimize the reaction plane

238: resolution \cite{pv}. Let us imagine that the particle with momentum

239: $p_T$ in \eq{v21} was produced in the same subcollision with some

240: other particle, which contributed to determination of the reaction

241: plane angle $\Phi_R$. Then the particle $p_T$ would be correlated with

242: the reaction plane by these non-flow azimuthal correlations. The

243: averaged over events correlations do not disappear at high $p_T$, as

244: will be shown below. Therefore the elliptic flow observable $v_2$ may

245: be potentially sensitive to the non-flow correlations originating from

246: minijet production in the initial conditions. To avoid this problem

247: the authors of \cite{ollie1} (see also \cite{wang}) introduced a

248: cumulant approach to flow analysis. In terms of the saturation model

249: contribution of minijets to higher order cumulants defined in

250: \cite{ollie1,wang} is suppressed by powers of $S_\perp Q_s^2 \,

251: \sim \, N_{part}$. This led the authors of

252: \cite{ollie1,wang} to suggest that the high-cumulant flow analysis would 

253: be relatively free of minijet effects compared to standard flow

254: analysis.

255: 

256: There are certain potential dangers in this conclusion which have to

257: be addressed in an explicit calculation. One is that for peripheral

258: collisions $S_\perp Q_s^2 \, \sim \, N_{part}$ is not such a large

259: number and therefore minijet effects should not be suppressed

260: anymore. From the experimental data \cite{pho,star,phenix} we know

261: that elliptic flow is strongest in peripheral collisions making the

262: minijet contribution also large. Another potentially dangerous

263: question is whether the parameter $S_\perp Q_s^2$ appears in actual

264: calculations with some numerically small prefactor making inverse

265: powers of $S_\perp Q_s^2$ not too small. After all the observed

266: differential $v_2$ is also not a very large quantity being of the

267: order of $10-15 \%$ at RHIC and may be very sensitive to such

268: corrections.

269: 

270: To clarify the questions mentioned above we are going to perform an

271: explicit calculation of the minijet contribution to the elliptic flow

272: observable. The paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 we show

273: that the standard determination of flow employing \eq{v22} and the

274: flow extracted from the 2nd cumulant proposed in

275: \cite{ollie1,ollie2,wang} should yield the same result for $v_2$ for a

276: trivial choice of weights. This result was confirmed by an explicit

277: flow analysis using two different methods at STAR giving almost the

278: same result for $v_2$ \cite{tang}.

279: 

280: 

281: The second order cumulant from \cite{ollie1,wang} is nothing but a

282: two-particle correlation function, a contribution to which from the

283: minijet production is calculated in Sect. 3. To construct a model of

284: minijet production which incorporates both hard and soft physics we

285: have used $k_T$ factorized expression for two-jet production with the

286: unintegrated gluon distributions given by the quasi-classical

287: Glauber-Mueller expression \cite{Mue,meM,kt,coll,coll2,jklw}. These

288: gluon distributions are characterized by the saturation scale $Q_s \,

289: \gg \, \Lambda_{QCD}$ which insures applicability of small coupling

290: approaches down to rather small transverse momenta of the produced

291: particles. Our model of course does not yield us the exact

292: two-particle production cross section, but gives a realistic

293: approximation similar to the one used in

294: \cite{dn,dgn} to describe the multiplicity distributions at RHIC. An exact 

295: calculation of double inclusive minijet production in the

296: quasi-classical framework appears to be rather complicated and is left

297: for further research: even the single inclusive cross section has not

298: been yet unambiguously theoretically determined, despite the extensive

299: efforts \cite{kv,yuaa}. 

300: 

301: In Sect. 3 we calculate the differential flow observable resulting

302: from these two-particle correlations. Our final result is given in

303: \eq{V2}. The obtained differential elliptic flow $v_2 (p_T)$ starts 

304: increasing as a power of $p_T$ for small $p_T \, \ll \, Q_s$ (see

305: \eq{small}) and then saturates to a slow logarithmic growth for $p_T \,

306: \gg \, Q_s$ (see \eq{large}). We also derive the centrality dependence 

307: of the minijet flow contribution (see \eq{bdep}). 

308: 

309: In Sect. 4 after making some simple assumptions about the gluon

310: distributions employed in the minijet production cross section we fit

311: the differential elliptic flow STAR data \cite{starsn} using the flow

312: from \eq{V2} with $\as \, = \, 0.3$, $Q_s \, = \, 1 \,

313: \mbox{GeV}^2$. These values are in agreement with the

314: ones used in the saturation-inspired analysis of the multiplicity data

315: in \cite{dn,dgn}. The fit is shown in \fig{ptfig}.  We can also fit

316: the centrality dependence of $v_2$ with our minijet model by noting

317: that the integrated flow should scale as $v_2 (B) \, \sim \,

318: 1/\sqrt{S_\perp Q_s^2} \, \sim \, 1/\sqrt{N_{part}}$ (see

319: \fig{btfig}). 

320: 

321: We discuss the results in Sect. 5 by stating that while a more

322: involved numerical analysis is still needed to analyze the emerging

323: RHIC data on elliptic flow we have demonstrated that the contribution

324: of minijets to the standard flow analysis is very large, possibly

325: accounting for most of high-$p_T$ data. Thus it appears that the

326: standard flow analysis is heavily ``contaminated'' by minijets which

327: prevent direct measurements of the contribution of collective QGP

328: effects to elliptic flow. At the same time flow analysis seems to be

329: rather sensitive to details of saturation physics and could be used

330: for determination of nuclear saturation scales.

331: 

332: 

333: \section{Different Methods of Flow Analysis}

334: 

335: In \cite{ollie1} Borghini et al proposed a new and interesting

336: approach to flow analysis employing higher order cumulants. Let us

337: outline some important features of the approach presented in

338: \cite{ollie1} for the lowest order cumulant. The second order

339: cumulant is defined for two particles with azimuthal angles $\phi_1$

340: and $\phi_2$ as \cite{ollie1,ollie2,wang}

341: \beq\label{c21}

342: \left<\left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_1 - \phi_2)} \, \right>\right> \, = \, 

343: \left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_1 - \phi_2)} \, \right> - \left< \, 

344: e^{2 i \phi_1} \, \right> \, \left< \, e^{- 2 i \phi_2} \, \right>.

345: \eeq

346: The average $\left< \, e^{2 i \phi_1} \, \right>$ vanishes since the

347: angle here is measured in the laboratory and heavy ion collisions are

348: azimuthally symmetric after averaging over many events. For flow

349: correlations this means that the angle in $\left< \, e^{2 i \phi_1} \,

350: \right>$ is not measured with respect to reaction plane, but with respect 

351: to some fixed direction in the detector. Assuming that the particles

352: $1$ and $2$ are correlated with each other only through the flow

353: correlations with the reaction plane the authors of \cite{ollie2}

354: wrote

355: \beq\label{c22}

356: \left<\left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_1 - \phi_2)} \, \right>\right> \, = \, 

357: \left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_1 - \phi_2)} \, \right> \, = \, 

358: \left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_1 - \Phi_R)} \, e^{2 i (\Phi_R - \phi_2)}\, \right> \,

359: = \, (v_2)^2, 

360: \eeq

361: where the definition of elliptic flow from

362: \eq{v21} was employed. A new method for measuring elliptic 

363: flow was proposed in \cite{ollie1} using the two particle (and higher

364: order) cumulants of \eq{c22}. If we fix the transverse momentum of

365: particle $1$ to be $p_T$ and average over all momenta of the particle

366: $2$ over many events then as one can see from \eq{c22}

367: \beq\label{c23}

368: \left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_1 (p_T) - \phi_2)} \, \right> \, = \, v_2 (p_T) \left< 

369: v_2 \right>

370: \eeq

371: with $\left< v_2 \right>$ the elliptic flow variable averaged over all

372: $p_T$. At the same time if we do not impose any restrictions on the

373: transverse momenta of both particles we get \cite{ollie2}

374: \beq\label{c24}

375: \left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_1 - \phi_2)} \, \right> \, = \, \left< 

376: v_2 \right>^2.

377: \eeq

378: From Eqs. (\ref{c23}) and (\ref{c24}) noting that only cosine

379: components of the exponents survive the averaging we obtain the

380: following expression for differential elliptic flow \cite{ollie2}

381: \beq\label{v2o}

382: v_2 (p_T) \, = \, \frac{\left< \, \cos ( 2 (\phi_1 (p_T) - \phi_2)) \,

383: \right>}{\sqrt{\left< \, \cos (2 (\phi_1 - \phi_2)) \, \right>}} .

384: \eeq

385: Let us define the event-averaged two-particle multiplicity

386: distribution function

387: \beq\label{2pd}

388: P(k_1, k_2, {\un B}) \, = \, \frac{dN}{d^2 k_1 \, dy_1 \, d^2 k_2

389: \,dy_2} ({\un B}),

390: \eeq

391: where the transverse momenta of the particles are ${\un k}_1$ and

392: ${\un k}_2$, while $y_1$ and $y_2$ are their rapidities and we average

393: over all events with the impact parameter ${\un B}$ between the two

394: nuclei. This distribution can be written as a sum of uncorrelated and

395: correlated terms

396: \beq\label{COR}

397: P( k_1, k_2, {\un B})\,=\,

398: \frac{dN}{d^2 k_1\, dy_1}\frac{dN}{d^2 k_2\, dy_2} + 

399: \frac{dN_{corr}}{d^2 k_1\,dy_1\, d^2 k_2\,dy_2},

400: \eeq

401: where we suppressed the impact parameter dependence. The correlated

402: term in \eq{COR} is usually much smaller than the uncorrelated one as

403: it is suppressed by a power of $Q_s^2 S_\perp \, \sim \,

404: N_{part}$. Using \eq{2pd} we rewrite \eq{v2o} as

405: \ben

406: v_2(k_1, {\un B})=\frac{\int\, d^2 k_2 dy_2 \, d\phi_1 dy_1\,P( k_1,

407: k_2, {\un B})\,

408: \cos(2(\phi_1-\phi_2))} {\int\, d^2 k_2 dy_2\, d\phi_1 dy_1\,

409: P(k_1, k_2, {\un B})} 

410: \een

411: \beq\label{MAIN}

412: \times \, \left(\frac{\int\, d^2 k_1 dy_1\, d^2 k_2 dy_2\, 

413: P(k_1\, k_2, {\un B})}{\int\, d^2 k_1 dy_1\, d^2 k_2 dy_2\, P(k_1,

414: k_2, {\un B})

415: \cos(2(\phi_1-\phi_2))} \right)^{1/2} ,

416: \eeq

417: where we have relabeled the transverse momenta of the particles to be

418: ${\un k}_1$ and ${\un k}_2$. \eq{MAIN} gives us a way of calculating

419: elliptic flow from two-particle correlation functions. Higher order

420: cumulants would yield us ways of calculating flow from higher order

421: particle correlations \cite{ollie1}, though one can not go to

422: arbitrary high order cumulants due to lack of statistics there. An

423: analysis of RHIC data has been performed at STAR \cite{tang} using

424: both conventional and cumulant approaches explicitly demonstrating

425: that the flow obtained by the second cumulant technique of \eq{MAIN}

426: is consistent with the flow extracted using conventional

427: techniques. That is the approach of \eq{MAIN} is equivalent to the

428: conventional flow analysis. To see this let us first note that in the

429: actual standard flow analysis one has to take into account the

430: resolution in the event plane determination \cite{pv}. This would

431: modify \eq{v21} giving \cite{pv,pho}

432: \beq\label{v22}

433: v_2 (p_T) \, = \, \frac{\left< \, \cos (2 (\phi_{p_T} - \Psi_R)) \,

434: \right>}{\sqrt{2 \left< \, \cos (2 (\Psi_R^a - \Psi_R^b)) \, \right>}}

435: \eeq

436: where $\Psi_R^a$ and $\Psi_R^b$ are the event plane angles determined

437: in two different sub-events labeled $a$ and $b$ with the particle

438: multiplicity $N/2$ in each of them while $\Psi_R$ is the event plane

439: angle determined in the full event with multiplicity $N$

440: \cite{pv}. \eq{v22} is quite similar to \eq{v2o}. To show that the two

441: equations are almost equivalent let us go back to exponential notation

442: and rewrite the numerator of \eq{v2o} as

443: \beq\label{cos1}

444: \left< \, \cos ( 2 (\phi_1 (p_T) - \phi_2)) \,

445: \right> \, = \, \left< \left< e^{2 i (\phi_1 (p_T) - 

446: \phi_2 (k_T))}\right>_{all \, k_T\neq p_T} 

447: \right>_{events}

448: \eeq

449: where we first average over all particles (with various $k_T$) in a

450: given event other than the chosen particle with momentum $p_T$, just

451: like in the standard flow analysis \cite{star}, and then average over

452: all events. On the other hand, the azimuthal angle of the reaction

453: plane $\Psi_R$ in \eq{v22} can be defined by

454: \beq\label{PR}

455: Q_N \, e^{- 2 i \Psi_R} \, = \, \left< e^{- 2 i \phi_{k_T}}

456: \right>_{all \, k_T\neq p_T},

457: \eeq

458: where $Q_N$ is a real number. If one neglects correlations between the

459: particles and multiplies \eq{PR} by its complex conjugate avergaing

460: over events with the same total multiplicity $N$ one easily gets $<

461: Q_N^2 > \, = \, 1/N$ \cite{ollie1}. Therefore at the leading order in

462: $N$ we have (for large $N$) $Q_N \, \sim \, 1/\sqrt{N}$.  In

463: \eq{PR} we for the moment forget about the transverse momentum cutoffs

464: imposed in event plane determination and subtleties related to

465: different choices of weights and detector imperfections. Substituting

466: \eq{PR} into the numerator of \eq{v22} we obtain

467: \ben

468: \left< \, \cos (2 (\phi_{p_T} - \Psi_R)) \,

469: \right>_{events} \, = \, \left< \, e^{2 i (\phi_{p_T} - \Psi_R)} \,

470: \right>_{events} \, = \, \left<  \frac{1}{Q_N} \, \left< \, 

471: e^{2 i (\phi_{p_T} - \phi_{k_T})}

472: \, \right>_{all \, k_T\neq p_T} \right>_{events} 

473: \een

474: \beq\label{cos2}

475: \approx \frac{1}{\left< Q_N \right>} \, \left< \left< \, 

476: e^{2 i (\phi_{p_T} - \phi_{k_T})}

477: \, \right>_{all \, k_T\neq p_T} \right>_{events} 

478: \eeq

479: where we assumed that for a fixed impact parameter collisions the

480: particle multiplicity $N$ (and, therefore, $Q_N$) is independent of

481: two-particle correlations. \eq{cos2} is identical to \eq{cos1} up to a

482: factor of $1/\left< Q_N \right>$. Similarly one can show that the

483: denominators in Eqs. (\ref{v22}) and (\ref{v2o}) are equal to each

484: other up to a factor of $\sqrt{2 / \left< Q_{N/2}^2 \right>}$:

485: \ben

486: 2 \left< \, \cos (2 (\Psi_R^a - \Psi_R^b)) \, \right>_{events} \, = \,

487: 2 \left< \, \frac{1}{Q_{N/2}^2} \, \left< e^{2 i (\phi_{k_{T1}} -

488: \phi_{k_{T2}})}\right>_{all \, different \, k_{T1}, k_{T2} } \,

489: \right>_{events}

490: \een

491: \beq\label{cos3}

492: \approx \, \frac{2}{\left< Q_{N/2}^2 \right>} \, 

493: \left< \cos (2 (\phi_1 - \phi_2))\right>. 

494: \eeq

495: Recalling that for large multiplicities $\left< Q_N \right> \sim

496: 1/\sqrt{N}$ we see that at the leading order in $N$: $\sqrt{\left<

497: Q_{N/2}^2 \right>} / \sqrt{2} \left< Q_N \right> \, \approx \, \left<

498: Q_{N/2} \right> / \sqrt{2} \left< Q_N \right> \approx 1$. Extra

499: factors in the numerator and denominator of \eq{v22} cancel reducing

500: it to \eq{v2o}.  Thus we showed that Eqs. (\ref{v22}) and (\ref{v2o})

501: are identical in the limit of large multiplicity $N$. We have proven

502: that the standard definition of flow from \eq{v22} is equivalent to

503: the definition introduced in \cite{ollie1,wang} given here by

504: \eq{v2o}). Therefore in order to calculate the differential elliptic

505: flow $v_2 (p_T)$ we need only to calculate the two-particle

506: correlation function $P (k_1, k_2, {\un B})$ and substitute it into

507: \eq{MAIN}.

508: 

509: 

510: 

511: 

512: 

513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

515: \section{Calculation of $v_2$}

516: 

517: To calculate the two-particle correlation coefficient in \eq{COR} one

518: needs to know single and double particle multiplicity

519: distributions. While the quasi-classical single particle production

520: mechanisms in heavy ion collisions have been extensively studied

521: \cite{claa,kv,yuaa}, the double inclusive particle production has not 

522: been calculated yet. One needs to calculate production of a pair of

523: particles with comparable transverse momenta $|{\un k}_1| \sim |{\un

524: k}_2| \sim Q_s$ and rapidities $y_1 \sim y_2$ in the framework of

525: McLerran-Venugopalan model \cite{kv}, that is resumming all powers of

526: $Q_s^2/k_\perp^2$ \cite{yuri,meM,yuaa}. Unlike the single gluon

527: production this process involves an extra gluon and can not be

528: described by the classical field methods of \cite{claa,kv,yuaa}. At

529: the lowest order in $Q_s^2/k_\perp^2$ the two gluon production

530: amplitude is equivalent to the real part of NLO BFKL kernel

531: \cite{BFKL,NLO} and is rather sophisticated \cite{leostr}. Going

532: beyond leading order in $Q_s^2/k_\perp^2$ appears to be tremendously

533: complicated and we will not address this problem here. Instead we are

534: going to construct a model of correlated two-particle production

535: employing quasi-classical gluon distributions from \cite{jklw,meM} in

536: the production formula inspired by collinear factorization

537: \cite{coll,coll2}, similar to how it was done in \cite{dn,dgn} in 

538: describing the multiplicity data at RHIC. We would also assume that in

539: any given event either $y_1 \gg y_2$ or $y_1 \ll y_2$. Of course this

540: assumption does not hold in actual flow analyses \cite{star,phenix,pho}

541: and we are making it just to simplify the calculations. While, as

542: discussed above, a more detailed calculation would still be required

543: to obtain an exact expression for the correlation coefficient in

544: \eq{COR}, we believe that it would only introduce numerical corrections 

545: to our approach leaving qualitative results the same. 

546: 

547: 

548: \begin{figure}

549: \begin{center}

550: \begin{tabular}{cc}

551: \epsfig{file=1g_prod.eps, width=7cm}

552: &

553: \epsfig{file=2g_prod.eps, width=7cm}\\

554: {\sl (a)} & {\sl (b)}

555: \end{tabular}

556: \end{center}

557: \caption{\sl (a) One- and (b) two-gluon production amplitudes. Thick dots 

558: denote Lipatov vertices. }

559: \label{FPROD}

560: \end{figure}

561: 

562: 

563: Consider inclusive production of one or two gluons in scattering of

564: two quarks at high energy as shown in \fig{FPROD}, where the blobs

565: denote effective Lipatov vertices. It is convenient to use the Sudakov

566: decomposition of gluons' four-momenta:

567: \beq\label{SUDAKOV}

568: q_i\, =\, \alpha_i p_1\, +\, \beta_i p_2 \, +\, \un q_i, \quad i=1, 2,

569: 3.

570: \eeq

571: In \fig{FPROD}(a) the dominant contribution stems from the multi-regge

572: kinematical region where $\alpha_1\gg\alpha_2$ and

573: $\beta_2\gg\beta_1$. Using Ward identities the $t$-channel gluon

574: propagators can be written as

575: \beq\label{PROPAG}

576: D^{\mu\nu}(q_i)\,=\,\frac{2}{s}\frac{\un q_i^\mu\un

577:   q_i^\nu}{\alpha_i\beta_i},

578: \eeq

579: where $s\,=\, 2(p_1\cdot p_2)$ is center-of-mass energy squared. With

580: this representation of the $t$-channel gluon propagator effective

581: Lipatov's vertex \cite{BFKL} for $s$-channel gluon production (black

582: blobs in the \fig{FPROD}) reduces to the usual three-gluon vertex

583: $\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^\rho$ and can be easily calculated:

584: \beq\label{LIPAT}

585: L^\rho\, =\, \un q_1^\mu \un q_2^\nu \Gamma_{\mu\nu}^\rho\, =\,

586: \frac{1}{2}\,\alpha_1\beta_2\,s\,

587: \left[\left(\alpha_1+\frac{2\un q_1^2}{\beta_2 s}\right)\, p_1^\rho\,

588:   +\,\left(\beta_2+\frac{2\un q_2^2}{\alpha_1 s}\right)\, p_2^\rho\,-

589: \, (\un q_1+\un q_2)^\rho\right].

590: \eeq

591: In our calculation we will need the square of Lipatov's vertex given

592: by

593: \beq\label{SQLIP}

594: (L^\rho)^2\,=\, \alpha_1\,\beta_2\,s \,\un q_1^2\un q_2^2.

595: \eeq

596: Using \eq{PROPAG}, \eq{LIPAT}, \eq{SQLIP} and the four-dimensional

597: momentum element decomposition 

598: \beq

599: d^4 q_i\,=\,\frac{s}{2}\, d^2\un q_i\, d\alpha_i\, d\beta_i

600: \eeq  

601: we evaluate the single and double distribution of the produced

602: particles shown in \fig{FPROD}

603: \beq\label{AMPL1}

604: \frac{dN}{d^2 k_1\,dy_1} \,=\, 

605: \frac{\alpha_s^3}{\pi^2}\,\frac{2 \, C_F \, A^2}{S_\perp \, {\un k}_1^2}\,

606: \int\, d^2 q_1 \,

607: \frac{1}{\un q_1^2 \, (\un k_1 -\un q_1)^2},

608: \eeq

609: \beq\label{AMPL2}

610: \frac{dN_{corr}}{d^2 k_1\,dy_1\, d^2 k_2\,dy_2} \,=\, 

611: \frac{\alpha_s^4}{\pi^4}\, \frac{N_c \, C_F \, A^2}{S_\perp \, 

612: {\un k}_1^2 \, {\un k}_2^2} \, 

613: \int\, d^2 q_1 \, \frac{1}{\un q_1^2 \, (\un k_1 + \un k_2 - \un q_1)^2},

614: \eeq

615: where we changed variables to $\un k_1\,=\, \un q_1-\un q_2$, $\un

616: k_2\,=\, \un q_2-\un q_3$ (the momenta of produced gluons).

617: Throughout the paper we assume for simplicity that the nucleus has a

618: cylindrical shape with radius $R$ and ``height'' $2 R$ and the axis of

619: the cylinder coincides with the collision axis. $S_\bot=S_\bot(\un B)$

620: is the nucleus overlap transverse area which depends on nuclei

621: relative impact parameter $\un B$. We assume that colliding nuclei are

622: identical having atomic number $A$ each.

623: 

624: In fact colliding quarks in \fig{FPROD} are not free but confined

625: inside nucleons. If momenta of produced gluons are higher than all

626: scales characterizing the nucleus (including $Q_s$) we can use

627: $k_t$-factorization to write the distributions from \eq{AMPL1} and

628: \eq{AMPL2} as convolutions of hard amplitudes with parton

629: distributions in nuclei which are predominantly gluonic in the high

630: energy region $s\gg t$. Employing the relation \cite{meM}

631: \beq\label{xG}

632: xG_A(x,\un q^2)\,=\,A\,xG(x,\un q^2)\,=\, 

633: A\,\frac{\alpha_s C_F}{\pi}\, \ln(\un q^2/\mu^2),

634: \eeq

635: with $\mu$ some non-perturbative cutoff the one and two-particle

636: distributions can be written as \cite{lr}

637: \beq\label{DISTR1}

638: \frac{dN}{d^2 k_1\,dy_1}\,=\,

639: \frac{2 \, \as\,}{C_F \, S_\bot}\,\frac{1}{\un k_1^2}\,\int\,

640: d^2 q_1\frac{dxG_A}{d\un q_1^2}\,\frac{dxG_A}{d(\un k_1- \un q_1)^2}

641: \eeq

642: \beq\label{DISTR2}

643: \frac{dN_{corr}}{d^2 k_1\,dy_1\, d^2 k_2\,dy_2}\,=\,

644: \frac{N_c \, \as^2}{\pi^2 \, C_F \, S_\bot}\,

645: \frac{1}{\un k_1^2\,\un k_2^2}\,\int\,

646: d^2 q_1\frac{d xG_A}{d\un q_1^2}\,\frac{d xG_A}{d(\un k_1+\un k_2 -

647: \un q_1)^2}.

648: \eeq

649: 

650:  

651: 

652: As was argued in the Introduction, if the number of partons in each

653: nuclei is large enough then their mutual interactions must be taken

654: into account. This may happen either due to increase of parton density

655: in each nucleon by subsequent emission of gluons in course of quantum

656: evolution as collision energy increases \cite{bk,jimwlk} or due to

657: enhancement of nucleon parton density in a large nucleus by the atomic

658: number $A$ \cite{mv,Mue,yuri}. The latter effect leads to creation of

659: the non-Abelian Weisz\"acker-Williams (WW) field $\un A^{WW}(\un z)$

660: of the nucleus which is a strong classical gluon field already at

661: moderate energies \cite{yuri,jklw}. The WW field gives rise to the

662: unintegrated gluon distribution given by \cite{jklw,meM}

663: \begin{eqnarray}

664: \frac{dxG_A(x,\un q^2)}{d\un q^2} &=&

665: \frac{2}{(2\pi)^2}\,\int\, d^2\un z \,e^{-i\un z\cdot\un q}\,

666: \int\, d^2\un b \,\mathrm{Tr}\,\langle \un A^{WW}(\un 0)\,\un A^{WW}(\un

667: z)\rangle\nonumber\\

668: &=&

669: \frac{2}{\pi (2\pi)^2}\,\int\, d^2\un z\, e^{-i\un z\cdot\un q}\,

670: \frac{S_\bot C_F}{\as\,\un z^2}\left(

671: 1-e^{-\frac{1}{4}\un z^2 Q_s^2}\right),\label{WW}

672: \end{eqnarray}

673: where $\un b$ is the gluon's impact parameter (which we can trivially

674: integrate over in a cylindrical nucleus) and

675: \beq\label{SATSCALE}

676: Q_s^2(\un z)\,=\, \frac{4\pi^2\, \as N_c}{N_c^2 - 1}\,\rho\,

677: xG(x,1/\un z^2)\, T(\un b),

678: \eeq

679: with $\rho\,=\, A/[2 \pi R^3]$ the atomic number density in the

680: cylindrical nucleus with atomic number $A$, and $T(\un b)$ the nucleus

681: profile function equal to $2 R$ for the cylindrical nucleus considered

682: here.  This provides the initial condition to the nonlinear quantum

683: evolution of the gluon distribution with energy in the high parton

684: density region \cite{bk}. $Q_s$ is a scale at which nonlinear nature

685: of the gluon field becomes evident. We suggest using the classical

686: expression \eq{WW} as an approximation to the exact gluon field of the

687: nucleus. This is a justified approximation as long as $\as\ln s\,

688: \lsim \,1$, i.e.,\ when corrections due to quantum evolution are small.

689: 

690: It is usually assumed that $k_T$-factorization holds in high parton

691: density regime as well as in the linear one

692: \cite{kt}. Phenomenological models for heavy ion collisions which

693: employ this assumption together with nonlinear evolution for gluon

694: distributions proved to be successful in describing experimental data

695: at SPS and RHIC \cite{dgn}. This implies that the use of

696: $k_T$-factorization is a quite good approximation for the SPS and RHIC

697: kinematical regions even for $k_T < Q_s$. Therefore substituting

698: \eq{WW} into \eq{DISTR1} and into \eq{DISTR2} we obtain the following 

699: expressions for the single and double gluon distributions

700: \beq\label{DD1}

701: \frac{dN}{d^2 k_1\, dy_1}\,=\frac{C_F\, S_\bot}

702: {\as\,\un k_1^2}\,\frac{4 \, K_1}{\pi^3}\,

703: \int_0^\infty\,\frac{dz}{z^3}\, J_0(k_1z)\,\left(

704: 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2,

705: \eeq

706: \beq\label{DD2}

707: \frac{dN_{corr}}{d^2 k_1\, dy_1 \, d^2 k_2\, dy_2}\,=\frac{N_c \, C_F \, S_\bot}

708: {\un k_1^2\,\un k_2^2}\,\frac{K_2}{\pi^{6}}\,

709: \int d^2 \un z \,\frac{1}{\un z^4} \,

710: e^{- i\un z \cdot (\un k_1+\un k_2)}\,\left(

711: 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2,

712: \eeq

713: where the saturation scales in both nuclei are the same since the

714: nuclei are cylindrical and identical. Generalization of

715: Eqs. (\ref{DD1}) and (\ref{DD2}) to a spherical nucleus is

716: straightforward.

717: 

718: We have to point out again that the single particle distribution is,

719: in principle, known better than displayed here in \eq{DD1}

720: \cite{yuaa}. For instance the distribution in \eq{DD1} is not infrared

721: safe, while the correct distribution derived in \cite{yuaa} has no

722: infrared divergences.  However, as we need both single and double

723: particle distributions to obtain elliptic flow using \eq{MAIN} we

724: should calculate both of them in the framework of the same

725: model. Since the exact calculation of the double gluon distribution

726: does not seem feasible at the moment we have to calculate both

727: distributions in the same $k_T$-factorization approach inserting

728: $K$-factors $K_1$ and $K_2$ to correct the normalization of the

729: approximation to include higher order corrections \cite{dgn}, which we

730: have done in Eqs. (\ref{DD1}) and (\ref{DD2}). The value of the

731: $K$-factors will be fixed later. We will determine $K_1$ by comparing

732: particle multiplicity per unit rapidity ($dN/dy$) resulting from

733: \eq{DD1} to the total multiplicity observed at RHIC

734: \cite{dgn}. To fix $K_2$ we consider two-particle production cross 

735: section, which is proportional to the two-particle multiplicity

736: distribution function $P (k_1, k_2, {\un B})$ from \eq{COR}. In the

737: limit of large transverse momentum $k_1 \sim k_2 \sim p_T$ the second

738: term in \eq{COR} given by \eq{DD2} falls off at most as $1/p_T^6$ and

739: has a collinear singularity ${\un k}_1 + {\un k}_2 = 0$.  Therefore it

740: dominates over the first term in \eq{COR} given by \eq{DD1} squared,

741: which gives a $1/p_T^8$ fall off of the cross section. For large ${\un

742: k}_1 = - {\un k}_2$ \eq{COR} and, therefore, \eq{DD2} should match

743: onto the corresponding collinear factorization expression for

744: back-to-back jets \cite{coll,coll2,lr,coll3,hijing}. To fix the

745: normalization we expand the term in the parentheses of \eq{DD2} to the

746: lowest order and integrate over one of the transverse momenta

747: obtaining

748: \beq\label{scoll}

749: \frac{d \sigma_{corr}}{d p_T^2 \, d y_1 \, d y_2} \, = \, K_2 \, 

750: \frac{9 \, \pi \, \as^2}{4 \, p_T^4} \, [xG (x, p_T^2)]^2

751: \eeq

752: in agreement with collinear factorization result at mid-rapidity

753: \cite{coll,coll2,coll3,hijing}. We put $N_c = 3$ explicitly in \eq{scoll}. 

754: Collinear factorization models \cite{coll,coll2,coll3,hijing} are

755: rather successful in describing the high-$p_T$ particle spectra in

756: hadronic and heavy ion collisions when putting $K_2 = 2$ to correct

757: the lowest order perturbative expression for next-to-leading order

758: effects. For our model to be in agreement with these high-$p_T$ data

759: we will have to also put $K_2 = 2$ when trying to describe the flow

760: data in the next section. We have to note that since the gluon

761: distributions in \eq{WW} do not include DGLAP \cite{dglap} evolution

762: in them and \eq{DD2} does not have jet quenching effects

763: \cite{gvw,glvbdmps,hijing} in it our model can not be applied to

764: describe the high-$p_T$ spectra and a complete DGLAP-evolved gluon

765: distributions along with jet quenching should be used in a more

766: detailed numerical treatment of the problem as was done for particle

767: spectra in \cite{coll,coll2,coll3,hijing}.

768: 

769: 

770: 

771: Substituting Eqs. (\ref{DD1}) and (\ref{DD2}) into \eq{COR} we are

772: ready to calculate $v_2 (p_T, {\un B})$. To calculate the integral in

773: the numerator of the first line of \eq{MAIN} we note that only the

774: correlated part of $P(k_1, k_2, {\un B})$ (the second term in

775: \eq{COR}) contributes there. Let us denote the angle between

776: two-vectors $\un z$ and $\un k_1$ by $\theta$ and the angle between

777: $\un k_2$ and $\un k_1$ by $\phi_2$. The third angle defining direction

778: of $\un k_1$ is free, so we can just integrate over it obtaining a

779: factor of $2 \pi$. Plugging \eq{DD2} into \eq{COR} and using the

780: latter in \eq{MAIN} we get

781: \begin{eqnarray}

782: && \int\, d^2 k_2\, d\phi_1\, P(k_1, k_2, {\un B}) \,

783: \cos(2(\phi_1-\phi_2)) \, = \, \int\, d^2 k_2\, d\phi_1\,

784: \frac{dN_{corr}}{d^2k_1\, dy_1\, d^2 k_2\, dy_2}\,

785: \cos(2(\phi_1-\phi_2))\nonumber\\

786: &&=\,\frac{N_c \, C_F \, S_\bot}{\un k_1^2}\,\frac{K_2}{\pi^5}\,

787: \int\, \frac{dz}{z^3}\, d\theta\, \frac{dk_2^2}{

788:   k_2^2}\,\left( 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2\, 

789: \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_2\, e^{-izk_2\cos(\phi_2-\theta)} \,

790: e^{-izk_1\cos\theta}\, \cos2\phi_2\nonumber\\ &&= \frac{N_c \, C_F \,

791: S_\bot}{\un k_1^2}\,\frac{4 \, K_2}{\pi^3}\,\int\frac{dz}{z^3}\,

792: \frac{dk_2^2}{ k_2^2}\,

793: \left( 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2\, J_2(k_1z)\, J_2(k_2z)\nonumber\\

794: &&= \frac{N_c \, C_F \, S_\bot}{\un

795: k_1^2}\,\frac{4 \, K_2}{\pi^3}\,\int_0^\infty\frac{dz}{z^3}\,\left( 1-e^{-\un

796: z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2\, J_2(k_1z)\label{I1}.

797: \end{eqnarray}

798: To calculate the integral in the denominator of the first line of

799: \eq{MAIN} we first note that the final state multiplicity per unit 

800: rapidity in heavy ion collisions was calculated in \cite{yuaa} (see

801: also \cite{Mueller2}) and reads

802: \beq\label{TOTMULT}

803: \frac{dN}{dy}\,=\,c \, \frac{S_\bot\, C_F\, Q_s^2}{\as\, 2\, \pi^2}

804: \eeq

805: with $c$ the gluon liberation coefficient which was calculated in

806: \cite{yuaa} to be $c = 2 \ln 2$. Following the same steps as in derivation of

807: \eq{I1} we find contributions to the integral in the denominator of

808: the first line of \eq{MAIN} of uncorrelated two-particle distribution

809: \begin{eqnarray}

810: &&\int\, d^2 k_2\, d\f_1\,

811: \frac{dN}{d^2 k_1 \, dy_1}\frac{dN}{d^2 k_2 \, dy_2}\,=\,

812: \frac{dN}{dy_2}\,\frac{dN}{k_1 \, d k_1\,dy_1} \nonumber\\ &&= 

813: \,c \, \frac{C_F^2\, S_\bot^2\, Q_s^2} {\as^2\,\un k_1^2}\,\frac{4 \, K_1}{\pi^4}\,

814: \int_0^\infty\,\frac{dz}{z^3}\, J_0(k_1z)\,\left(

815: 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2

816: \label{I4}

817: \end{eqnarray}

818: and of correlated two-particle distribution

819: \begin{eqnarray}

820: &&\int\, d^2 k_2\, d\f_1\,\frac{dN_{corr}}{d^2 k_1\, dy_1\, d^2 k_2 \,

821: dy_2}\nonumber\\ &&= \frac{N_c\, C_F \, S_\bot}{\un k_1^2}\,\frac{8 \,

822: K_2}{\pi^3}\,\int_0^\infty\frac{dz}{z^3}\,\left( 1-e^{-\un z^2

823: Q_s^2/4}\right)^2\, J_0(k_1z)\, \ln\frac{1}{z\mu}.

824: \label{I2}

825: \end{eqnarray}

826: As one can obviously see the integral in \eq{I4} is enhanced by factor

827: of $S_\bot Q_s^2/\as^2$ as compared to the integral in \eq{I2}. This

828: means that the total number of correlated pairs of particles is

829: negligible compared to the number of the uncorrelated pairs given by

830: the square of the total multiplicity. Therefore the correlated

831: contribution form \eq{I2} can be neglected compared to the

832: uncorrelated contribution in \eq{I4}.

833: 

834: To estimate the integrals in the second line of \eq{MAIN} we

835: need to integrate \eq{I1} over momenta $k_1$

836: \begin{eqnarray}\label{X3}

837: && \int\, d^2 k_1\, d^2 k_2\, P(k_1, k_2, {\un B}) \,

838: \cos(2(\phi_1-\phi_2))  \nonumber\\ &&  = \, \int_0^\infty \, d k_1 \, k_1 \,  

839: \frac{N_c \, C_F \, S_\bot}{

840: k_1^2}\,\frac{4 \, K_2}{\pi^3}\,\int_0^\infty\frac{dz}{z^3}\,\left(

841: 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2\, J_2(k_1z) \approx \frac{N_c C_F

842: S_\bot Q_s^2 \, K_2 \, \ln 2}{2 \, \pi^3},

843: \end{eqnarray}

844: where we assumed that $Q_s^2$ of \eq{SATSCALE} is approximately

845: independent of transverse coordinate $\un z$ neglecting the logarithm

846: of \eq{xG}. To complete the calculation of the integrals in \eq{MAIN}

847: we note that

848: \beq\label{X4}

849: \int\, d^2 k_1\, d^2 k_2\, P(k_1, k_2, {\un B}) \, = \, 

850: \frac{dN}{dy_1}\, \frac{dN}{dy_2}\, = \, \left( c \, 

851: \frac{S_\bot\, C_F\, Q_s^2}{\as\, 2\, \pi^2} \right)^2.

852: \eeq

853: Inserting Eqs. (\ref{I1}), (\ref{I4}), (\ref{X3}) and (\ref{X4}) into

854: \eq{MAIN} and noting that the integration over rapidities is trivial 

855: and cancels out between different integrals we obtain

856: \beq\label{V2-}

857: v_2(p_T, \un B)\,=\,\as

858: \,\left(\frac{\pi \, N_c \, K_2}{2 \, \ln 2 \, C_F \, S_\bot \, Q_s^2 \, K_1^2}

859: \right)^{1/2}\,

860: \frac{\int_0^\infty\,\frac{dz}{z^3}\, J_2(p_T z)\, \left(

861: 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2} {\int_0^\infty\,\frac{dz}{z^3}\,

862: J_0(p_T z)\, \left( 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2}.

863: \eeq

864: We have changed the transverse momentum back to $p_T$ to comply with

865: conventional notation. \eq{V2-} gives the minijet contribution to the

866: differential elliptic flow for collision of two identical nuclei at

867: given impact parameter $\un B$. $v_2(p_T)$ measured in experiments is

868: averaged over all impact parameters

869: \cite{star}

870: \beq\label{v2p}

871: v_2(p_T) \, = \, \frac{\int \, d^2 B \, v_2(p_T, \un B) \,

872: (dN / d^2 p_T \, dy) }{\int \, d^2 B \, (dN / d^2 p_T \, dy)}. 

873: \eeq

874: In our model each nucleus is cylindrical, so that the dependence on

875: the impact parameter $B$ comes only from the nuclear overlap area

876: $S_\bot(B)$. The overlap area is

877: \beq\label{SBOT}

878: S_\bot\,=\,R^2\, (\beta\, - \sin\beta)\,=\,

879: R^2\,(2\arccos(B/2R)-\sin(2\arccos(B/2R)),

880: \eeq

881: where $\beta$ is the opening angle in the transverse plane as shown in

882: \fig{ANGLE}.

883: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

884: \begin{figure}\begin{center}

885: \epsfig{file=overlap.eps, width=5cm}

886: \end{center}

887: \caption{\sl Nuclear collision in the transverse plane.}\label{ANGLE}

888: \end{figure}

889: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

890: From \eq{DD1} we see that $dN / d^2 p_T \, dy \, \sim \, S_\perp ({\un

891: B})$ and from \eq{V2-} one concludes that $v_2(p_T, \un B) \, \sim \,

892: 1/\sqrt{S_\perp ({\un B})}$. Therefore after using Eqs. (\ref{DD1})

893: and (\ref{V2-}) in \eq{v2p} the impact parameter averaging reduces to

894: \beq

895: \frac{\int_0^{2R}\,d B\, B\,  \sqrt{2\arccos(B/2R)-\sin(2\arccos(B/2R)}}

896: {R \, \int_0^{2R}\,d B\, B\, (2\arccos(B/2R)-\sin(2\arccos(B/2R))} \,

897: \approx \, \frac{.99}{R} \, \approx \, \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{S^A_\perp}},

898: \eeq

899: where $S^A_\perp \, = \, \pi \, R^2$ is the cross sectional area of

900: the nucleus. The final result for $v_2 (p_T)$ reads

901: \beq\label{V2}

902: v_2(p_T)\,=\, \as\,\left(\frac{\pi^2 \, N_c \, K_2}{2 \, \ln 2 \, C_F

903: \, S^A_\perp \, Q_s^2 \, K_1^2} \right)^{1/2}\,

904: \frac{\int_0^\infty\,\frac{dz}{z^3}\, J_2(p_T z)\,\left(

905: 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2}

906: {\int_0^\infty\,\frac{dz}{z^3}\, J_0(p_T z) \,\left(

907: 1-e^{-\un z^2 Q_s^2/4}\right)^2}.

908: \eeq

909: \eq{V2} is our main result for differential elliptic flow. Let us first 

910: study the qualitative features of the flow from \eq{V2} before using

911: it to fit RHIC data in Sect. 4.

912: 

913: In the small momentum region, $p_T \, \ll \, Q_s$, we can neglect the

914: exponents in the numerator and denominator of \eq{V2}. Expanding the

915: Bessel functions for small $p_T z$ and cutting off the integrals over

916: $z$ by $1/p_T$ from above and $1/Q_s$ from below we end up with

917: \beq\label{small}

918: v_2(p_T) \, \approx \, \as \,\left(\frac{\pi^2 \, N_c \, K_2}{2 \, \ln

919: 2 \, C_F \, S^A_\perp \, Q_s^2 \, K_1^2} \right)^{1/2}\,

920: \frac{p_T^2}{4 \, Q_s^2} \, \ln \frac{Q_s}{p_T},\quad\quad p_T \, \ll

921: \, Q_s.

922: \eeq

923: We see that minijet $v_2$ is an increasing function of transverse

924: momentum, which is in qualitative agreement with the data.

925: 

926: The asymptotic behavior of $v_2$ at high transverse momenta of the

927: particles, $p_T \, \gg \, Q_s$, can be found by expanding the

928: exponents in the numerator and denominator of \eq{V2}. Here it is

929: essential to keep logarithms arising from Eqs. (\ref{SATSCALE}) and

930: (\ref{xG}). Simple integration yields

931: \beq\label{large}

932: v_2(p_T) \, \approx \, \as \,\left(\frac{\pi^2 \, N_c \, K_2}{2 \, \ln

933: 2 \, C_F \, S^A_\perp \, Q_s^2 \, K_1^2} \right)^{1/2}\,

934: \ln( p_T/\mu),\quad \quad  p_T \, \gg \, Q_s.

935: \eeq

936: Therefore we conclude that while the differential elliptic flow given

937: by \eq{V2} increases for small transverse momenta, at $p_T \, \sim \,

938: Q_s$ it turns over and its growth slows down to just a logarithmic

939: increase. As the transverse momentum increases the DGLAP \cite{dglap}

940: logarithms should become important modifying \eq{large}. The logarithm

941: in \eq{large} might also be an artifact of our approach and it might

942: disappear if a more detailed analysis is carried out with inclusion of

943: evolution effects in the gluon distribution functions. At the moment

944: we can make an observation that the contribution from minijets to

945: differential elliptic flow is in qualitative agreement with the data

946: \cite{starsn}.

947: 

948: To understand the centrality dependence of the elliptic flow coming

949: from minijets we use the definition \cite{star}

950: \beq\label{v2bdef}

951: v_2(B) \, = \, \frac{\int \, d^2 p_T \, dy \, v_2(p_T, \un B) \,

952: (dN / d^2 p_T \, dy) }{\int \, d^2 p_T \, dy \, (dN / d^2 p_T \, dy)}

953: \eeq

954: to obtain using Eqs. (\ref{DD1}) and (\ref{TOTMULT})

955: \beq\label{v2b}

956: v_2(B) \, = \, \as \, \left(\frac{2 \, \ln 2 \ \pi \, K_2 \, N_c}{c^2

957: \, C_F \, S_\perp (B) \, Q_s^2} \right)^{1/2},

958: \eeq

959: where $S_\perp (B)$ is now the $B$-dependent nuclear overlap

960: area. Since $S_\perp (B) \, Q_s^2 \, \sim \, N_{part}$ we may

961: therefore conclude that minijets flow scales as

962: \beq\label{bdep}

963: v_2(B) \, \sim \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{part}}}.

964: \eeq

965: Elliptic flow from \eq{bdep} is smaller for central collisions with

966: large $N_{part}$ and it increases for peripheral collisions with

967: decreasing $N_{part}$, again in qualitative agreement with the data

968: \cite{pho,star,phenix}.

969: 

970: 

971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

972: \section{Our model versus experimental data}

973: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}

974: 

975: There are three interesting kinematical regions in high energy heavy

976: ion collisions corresponding to various values of transverse momenta

977: $p_T$:

978: \begin{enumerate}

979: \item  $p_T\lsim Q_s$ where multiple rescatterings of partons dominate. 

980:  In this region transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ is given by

981:  \eq{small}.  Owing to the nonlinear interactions nuclear structure

982:  functions in region (i) are functions of only one variable $Q/Q_s(x)$

983:  instead of two $Q$ and $x$. This is often referred to as geometric

984:  scaling \cite{geom}.

985: \item  $p_T \gg Q_s$ where the DGLAP \cite{dglap} evolution starts

986:  to be important. There the leading behavior of $v_2$ is given by

987:  \eq{large} in which DGLAP equation may introduce logarithmic

988:  corrections, possibly changing the power of $\ln (p_T/\mu)$. The

989:  scaling behavior is broken down.

990: \item At high energies in the  course of quantum evolution 

991:  the saturation scale $Q_s$ becomes much larger than any soft QCD

992:  scale $\Lambda$. It was argued both analytically \cite{larry} and

993:  numerically \cite{geom,satevol,lub} that the geometrical scaling

994:  holds in a much wider kinematical region than (i). In fact the

995:  additional scaling region is $Q_s\lsim p_T \lsim Q_s^2/\Lambda$.

996:  Here even though the scattering amplitude is still far from

997:  saturation, the nonlinear interactions produce remarkable scaling

998:  phenomenon. It was argued in \cite{dn} that the saturation scale in

999:  RHIC kinematical region is of the order of $1\div 1.4$~GeV. Since

1000:  $\Lambda \sim 0.1\div 0.2$~GeV, we expect the scaling to be important

1001:  at $p_T\le 5\div 10$~GeV, i.e., throughout most of the kinematic

1002:  region of the differential elliptic flow data \cite{starsn}.

1003: \end{enumerate}

1004: 

1005: To compare predictions of our model with data collected by the STAR

1006: collaboration at RHIC \cite{starsn} we should evaluate $v_2$ given by

1007: \eq{V2} and \eq{v2b} at $p_T < 5$~GeV.  This means calculation in the

1008: regions (i) and (iii) where geometric scaling works and the only

1009: relevant dimensional scale is $Q_s$.  Quantum evolution changes the

1010: quasi-classical result of \eq{SATSCALE} so that the saturation scale

1011: acquires energy dependence. Its analytical expression can be

1012: calculated from the nonlinear evolution equation \cite{bk}. There is a

1013: simple way to introduce $Q_s$ into our model preserving geometric

1014: scaling developed by quantum evolution, where $Q_s$ will play a role

1015: of a phenomenological parameter which is used to fit the data. Namely,

1016: by definition the saturation scale is a scale at which the expression

1017: in the Glauber exponent of \eq{WW} equals one

1018: \beq\label{D1}

1019: \frac{1}{4}\,\un z^2\, Q_s^2 (\un z)\,|_{\un

1020:   z^2=4/Q^2_s}\,=\, \frac{Q_{s0}^2}{Q_s^2}\,\ln

1021: \frac{Q_s}{2 \mu}\,=\, 1, 

1022: \eeq

1023: where we have introduced in the quasi-classical (Glauber)

1024: approximation

1025: \beq

1026: Q_{s0}^2 \, = \, \frac{4\pi\,\alpha_s^2\,A}{S_\perp^A},

1027: \eeq

1028: which is an unknown constant for the case of a fully evolved

1029: distribution.  $Q_{s0}$ can be easily expressed in terms of $Q_s$

1030: using \eq{D1}

1031: \beq\label{qs0}

1032: Q_{s0}^2 \, = \, \frac{Q_s^2}{\ln \frac{Q_s}{2 \mu}}.

1033: \eeq 

1034: Substituting \eq{qs0} into \eq{V2} means the following change in the

1035: power of the Glauber exponents

1036: \beq\label{D2}

1037: -\frac{1}{4}\,\un z^2\, Q_{s0}^2\,\ln

1038: \frac{1}{z \mu}  = \,

1039: -\frac{1}{4}\,\un z^2\, Q_s^2 \,

1040: \frac{\ln\frac{1}{z \mu}}{\ln(Q_s/2 \mu)}.

1041: \eeq

1042: Using \eq{D2} in \eq{V2} we can write for the integrals involved

1043: \beq\label{int}

1044: \int_0^\infty\,\frac{dz}{z^3}\, J_n (p_T z)\,\left(

1045: 1-e^{- z^2 Q_s^2 (z)/4}\right)^2 \, = \, p_T^2 \,

1046: \int_0^\infty\,\frac{d\xi}{\xi^3}\, J_n (\xi)\,\left( 1 - e^{- (\xi^2 Q_s^2 

1047: / 4 p_T^2) \, \frac{\ln\frac{2 \, p_T}{\xi

1048: \Lambda}}{\ln(Q_s/\Lambda)}}\right)^2

1049: \eeq

1050: where we defined $\xi \equiv p_T z$, $\Lambda = 2 \mu$ and $n=0 \,

1051: \mbox{or} \, 2$. Geometric scaling \cite{geom} implies that the

1052: distribution functions depend only on one parameter $p_T/Q_s$. To

1053: eliminate the scaling violating terms in \eq{int} we note that the

1054: average value $<z> \, \sim \, 1/<p_T> \, \sim \, 2/Q_s$ and rewrite

1055: the logarithm as

1056: \beq\label{QQ}

1057: \ln\frac{2 \, p_T}{\xi \, \Lambda} \, \approx \, 

1058: \ln\frac{Q_s}{\xi \, \Lambda}

1059: \eeq

1060: where $\Lambda$ would be an independent parameter of our fit

1061: restricted by reasonable possible values of the non-perturbative

1062: scale. The integral of

1063: \eq{int} becomes

1064: \beq\label{int2}

1065:  p_T^2 \,

1066: \int_0^\infty\,\frac{d\xi}{\xi^3}\, J_n (\xi)\,\left( 1 - e^{- (\xi^2 Q_s^2 

1067: / 4 p_T^2) \, \frac{\ln\frac{Q_s}{\xi \, \Lambda}}{\ln

1068: (Q_s/\Lambda)}}\right)^2.

1069: \eeq

1070: This form of the integrals will be used in \eq{V2} to numerically

1071: estimate $v_2 (p_T)$.

1072: 

1073: To obtain numerical value of $v_2(p_T)$ we have to estimate the

1074: normalization coefficient $K_1$. To this aim note that the fraction of

1075: the total particle multiplicity per unit of rapidity due to soft

1076: saturation physics in heavy ion collisions at center-of-mass energy

1077: $\sqrt{s}=130$~GeV is given by \cite{dn}

1078: \beq\label{MULTT}   

1079: \frac{dN_{sat}}{dy}\,\approx\, 1.02 \, \frac{3 \, N_\mathrm{part}}{2},

1080: \eeq

1081: where $3/2$ is the conversion factor from charged particles to all

1082: particles multiplicity.  On the other hand, we can calculate the total

1083: particle multiplicity by integrating \eq{DD1} over all momenta $k_1$

1084: which gives

1085: \beq\label{MULYY}

1086: \frac{dN}{dy}\,=\, K_1 \, \frac{2 \, \ln 2\, S_\bot^A \, C_F\, Q_s^2}{\pi^2\,\as}

1087: \, \ln \frac{Q_s}{2 \mu}.

1088: \eeq

1089: Equating \eq{MULTT} and \eq{MULYY} for the head-on collisions ($B=0$)

1090: we obtain

1091: \beq\label{KK}

1092: K_1 \,=\,\frac{3 \, \pi^2 \,\as\, 1.02 \, N_\mathrm{part}(B=0)}{ 4 \,

1093: \ln 2 \, S_\bot^A \, C_F\, Q_s^2\, \ln(Q_s/\Lambda)}.

1094: \eeq

1095: where $N_\mathrm{part}(B=0)=344$ \cite{dn}. For gold nuclei with $\as

1096: = 0.3$, $Q_s= 1.0$~GeV and $\Lambda \approx 0.15$~GeV the

1097: normalization factor is $K_1 \, \approx \, 0.14$.

1098: 

1099: 

1100: With the help of \eq{int2} the integration in \eq{V2} has been done

1101: numerically for $\Lambda \approx 0.15$~GeV. We put $K_2 = 2$ in

1102: \eq{V2} in agreement with collinear factorization approaches 

1103: \cite{coll3,hijing}. $S_\perp^A = \pi R^2$ with the radius given by

1104: Woods--Saxon parameterization $R=1.1 A^{1/3}$~fm. The results are

1105: shown in \fig{ptfig}. It can be seen that

1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1107: \begin{figure}

1108: \begin{center}

1109: \epsfig{file=v2a.eps, width=13cm}

1110: \end{center}

1111: \caption{\sl Differential elliptic flow data from STAR \cite{starsn} versus 

1112: the predictions of our minijet model. Different lines correspond to

1113: our predictions with different values of the saturation scale: $Q_s=

1114: 1.0$~GeV (solid line), $Q_s=1.1$~GeV (dashed line) and $Q_s=0.9$~GeV

1115: (dash-dotted line).  We used the following parameters

1116: $\Lambda$=0.15~GeV, $\as$=0.3, $A$=197 (Gold). }

1117: \label{ptfig}

1118: \end{figure}

1119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1120: our model describes the high $p_T$ data remarkably well. We are led to

1121: the conclusion that the high momentum tail of the $v_2$ is saturated

1122: by the two-particle correlated minijet production. We can also explain

1123: the turnover of $v_2$ at $p_T\sim 1\div2\sim Q_s$~GeV as being due to

1124: saturation effects in the wave functions of the colliding nuclei at

1125: low $p_T$. Another important observation is that two-particle

1126: correlations in the initial state give significant contribution at low

1127: $p_T$ as one can see in \fig{ptfig}.  Note that the $p^2_T$ increase

1128: of $v_2$ at small momenta may be an artifact of our model which

1129: neglects the change of the anomalous dimension $\gamma$ of the gluon

1130: structure function.  It is well known that correct anomalous dimension

1131: at the boundary of the saturation region is $\gamma\approx 1/2$

1132: \cite{satevol}. It smoothly changes from 0 in the unitarity limit to 1

1133: in the Bjorken limit \cite{satevol}. More accurate analysis is needed

1134: to understand the low $p_T$ behavior of $v_2$ due to two-particle

1135: correlations in minijet production.

1136: 

1137: Applicability of our model is restricted to the mid-rapidity

1138: kinematical region. However, since the total particle multiplicity is

1139: dominated by the particle production at mid-rapidity the averaging

1140: over all impact parameters in \eq{v2p} gives a reasonable

1141: approximation. The situation is different if we want to apply our

1142: model to describe the centrality dependence of $v_2$. While we expect

1143: it to be in agreement with the data for the most central events, it is

1144: not legitimate to use it for peripheral collisions. 

1145: 

1146: 

1147: Eqs. (\ref{v2b}) and (\ref{bdep}) imply 

1148: \beq\label{v2bfit}

1149: v_2(B)\,=\,\frac{v_2(B=0)\,\sqrt{N_\mathrm{part}(B=0)}}

1150: {\sqrt{N_\mathrm{part}}}\,=\,

1151: \as \, \left(\frac{\pi \, N_c \, K_2 \,  N_\mathrm{part}(B=0) }

1152: {2 \ln 2 \, C_F \, S_\perp^A \,

1153: Q_s^2 \, N_\mathrm{part}}\right)^{1/2},

1154: \eeq

1155: where we used $c = 2 \ln 2$ \cite{yuaa}.

1156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1157: \begin{figure}

1158: \begin{center}

1159: \epsfig{file=v2b.eps, width=13cm}

1160: \end{center}

1161: \caption{\sl Centrality dependence of elliptic flow given by the STAR 

1162: data (black dots) and our fit (empty crosses). We used

1163: $\Lambda$=0.15~GeV, $\as$=0.3, $A$=197, $Q_s$=1~GeV and

1164: $N_\mathrm{part} (B=0)$ = 344 \cite{dn}.}

1165: \label{btfig}

1166: \end{figure}

1167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1168: In \fig{btfig} we show the result of numerical calculations compared

1169: to STAR data \cite{star,starsn}. The data is represented by black dots

1170: while our fit is given by empty crosses. We have used

1171: \eq{v2bfit} with the coefficient $K_2 = 2$. To find the average

1172: $N_\mathrm{part}$ in a given centrality bin we have used the model of

1173: Kharzeev and Nardi \cite{dn}. Horizontal error bars in our fit

1174: correspond to the widths of centrality bins. Vertical error bars

1175: account for our use of cylindrical nuclear shape instead of spherical

1176: and for the uncertainty in $N_\mathrm{part}$ coming from the model of

1177: \cite{dn}.  As expected our model provides a reasonable description

1178: of the data for central events while the fit does not work that well

1179: for peripheral collisions. The saturation scale decreases toward the

1180: large impact parameters where at some point it becomes of the order of

1181: $\Lambda_{QCD}$ and the small coupling approach breaks down. Thus, as

1182: was mentioned above, our approach is not applicable to very peripheral

1183: collisions and can not be expected to work for them. We conclude that

1184: our model gives a reasonable description of $v_2$ centrality

1185: dependence for the values of centrality

1186: $n_\mathrm{ch}/n_\mathrm{max}\ge 0.4$.

1187: 

1188: 

1189: The maximum of the centrality distribution of elliptic flow is

1190: probably determined by the onset of non-perturbative effects.  The

1191: flow from \eq{v2b} increases with increasing $B$, until at some point

1192: the saturation scale $Q_s (B)$ becomes of the order of $\Lambda_{QCD}$

1193: and non-perturbative effects take over keeping $v_2 (B)$ approximately

1194: constant for peripheral collisions. (Strictly speaking \eq{v2b} was

1195: derived for cylindrical nuclei with saturation scales independent of

1196: the impact parameter. However in real life $Q_s$ is of course a

1197: function of $B$ \cite{meM,dn,dgn}.) Let us denote the impact parameter

1198: at which the non-perturbative effects take over by $B_0$, so that $Q_s

1199: (B_0) \, \approx \, \Lambda_{QCD}$. Since $Q_s$ is an increasing

1200: function of the center of mass energy $s$ \cite{bk,satevol}, the

1201: impact parameter $B_0$ must also be an increasing function of

1202: $s$. That is as energy increases more and more collisions become

1203: perturbative with the non-perturbative physics being responsible only

1204: for increasingly more peripheral collisions. The maximum of the flow

1205: centrality distribution could be estimated from \eq{v2b} to be $v_2

1206: (B_0) \, \sim \, 1/\sqrt{S_\perp (B_0) \, \Lambda_{QCD}^2}$. With the

1207: increase of energy $B_0$ increases, $S_\perp (B_0)$ decreases and,

1208: therefore, $v_2 (B_0)$ increases, which qualitatively agrees with RHIC

1209: and SPS data \cite{starsn,na49,wa98,pho,star,phenix}.

1210: 

1211: 

1212: 

1213: 

1214: 

1215: 

1216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1217: 

1218: \section{Conclusions}

1219: 

1220: In this paper we have calculated the contribution of pairwise

1221: azimuthal correlations in minijet production to elliptic flow

1222: variable. The resulting differential elliptic flow $v_2 (p_T)$ given

1223: by \eq{V2} is in good qualitative (see Eqs. (\ref{small}) and

1224: (\ref{large})) and quantitative (see \fig{ptfig}) agreement with the

1225: emerging RHIC data \cite{pho,star,phenix,starsn}. The centrality

1226: dependence of the minijet contribution to elliptic flow $v_2 (B)$ (see

1227: Eqs. (\ref{v2b}) and (\ref{bdep})) successfully describes the data for

1228: sufficiently central collisions as shown in \fig{btfig}. The maximum

1229: $v_2 (B)$ appears to increase with energy also in agreement with the

1230: data \cite{starsn}.

1231: 

1232: There are several important questions which still have to be addressed

1233: in the future as more flow data is produced at RHIC. One question

1234: concerns the value of the directed flow $v_1$. It may seem from the

1235: above discussion that using two-particle correlations one might write,

1236: similar to \eq{v2o},

1237: \beq\label{v1}

1238: v_1 (p_T) \, = \, \frac{\left< \, \cos (\phi_1 (p_T) - \phi_2) \,

1239: \right>}{\sqrt{\left< \, \cos (\phi_1 - \phi_2) \, \right>}} 

1240: \eeq

1241: and using the correlations of \eq{DD2} get a non-zero directed

1242: flow. However, let us remind the reader that in the analysis of

1243: directed flow the signs of the weights used in determination of the

1244: reaction plane are reversed in backward hemisphere with respect to the

1245: forward one \cite{elfl,pv}. That is, in the numerator of \eq{v1}, the

1246: contributions from $y_2 > 0$ and $y_2 < 0$ come in with different

1247: signs (we denote the central rapidity of the event by

1248: $y=0$). Therefore, since in our boost-invariant model the two

1249: contributions are identical, the final result for $v_1$ at

1250: mid-rapidity is zero in agreement with the SPS data \cite{na49}. If we

1251: impose some constraint on the rapidity interval of the analyzed

1252: particles making it asymmetric with respect to $y=0$, e.g. analyzing

1253: only particles with $y>0$, the differential directed flow from

1254: minijets would also become non-zero as observed experimentally

1255: \cite{na49}.

1256: 

1257: In our analysis we have neglected contributions from correlated

1258: production of three and more particles in a single subcollision. The

1259: corresponding diagrams may also contribute to the two-particle

1260: correlation function in \eq{COR}.  Of course they are suppressed by

1261: extra powers of the strong coupling constant $\as$ compared to

1262: \eq{DD2}, though these extra powers are compensated by the large 

1263: logarithms arising due to phase space integration

1264: \cite{dglap,BFKL}. In heavy ion collisions at RHIC the saturation

1265: scale is of the order of $Q_s \, \sim \, 1 \, \mbox{GeV}$

1266: \cite{dn,dgn,yuaa} and the corresponding value of the coupling

1267: constant is $\as (Q_s) \, \approx \, 0.3$, which is not too small and

1268: will also be enhanced by logarithms of energy and transverse

1269: momentum. Thus to have a precise description of the minijet

1270: contribution to elliptic flow one has to resum all these multiple

1271: emission diagrams, which is equivalent to including the effects of

1272: quantum evolution in the double inclusive gluon distribution of

1273: \eq{DD2}. Since at the moment there is even no rigorously derived

1274: expression for double gluon production in AA in the quasi-classical

1275: approximation, including evolution effects in it seems like an

1276: important but not immediate goal. 

1277: 

1278: To improve the quality of the minijet predictions one has to also

1279: relax the $y_1 \gg y_2$ (or $y_1 \ll y_2$) condition which we imposed

1280: to simplify the calculation. This condition led to absence of rapidity

1281: correlations in the two-particle distribution given by our

1282: \eq{DISTR2}. Also the azimuthal correlations given by \eq{DISTR2} are 

1283: only ``back-to-back'', i.e., the produced particles are correlated

1284: mostly in the opposite directions in the transverse plane. This

1285: behavior seems to contradict recent results reported by PHENIX

1286: \cite{phenix,jr} where the two-particle correlation function $C

1287: (\Delta \phi = \phi_1 - \phi_2)$ has maxima at both $\Delta \phi =

1288: \pi$ (back-to-back) and $\Delta \phi = 0$. Relaxing the $y_1 \gg y_2$

1289: (or $y_1 \ll y_2$) condition would greatly complicate the particle

1290: production calculations \cite{NLO} though would give predictions for

1291: elliptic flow in a much more realistic kinematics. The appropriate

1292: calculations were performed for production of a pair of particles with

1293: $y_1 \sim y_2$ by Leonidov and Ostrovsky in \cite{leostr}. The results

1294: of \cite{leostr} indicate that the two produced particles are indeed

1295: somewhat correlated in rapidity. The analysis of azimuthal

1296: distributions performed in \cite{leostr} also demonstrates enhancement

1297: of both $\Delta \phi = \pi$ and $\Delta \phi = 0$ correlations in the

1298: obtained double particle spectrum, in qualitative agreement with

1299: PHENIX data \cite{phenix,jr}. These correlations should also

1300: contribute to smallness of directed flow $v_1$. A detailed analysis of

1301: elliptic flow employing the full calculation of \cite{leostr} will be

1302: done elsewhere \cite{us}. In a complete analysis one has to put in

1303: realistic geometrical shapes for the nuclei as well. Of course the

1304: effects of different cuts used to analyze the data and various choices

1305: of weights have to be incorporated in the precise analysis too. While

1306: these modifications are likely to introduce some numerical changes in

1307: the fits to the elliptic flow data presented above, we believe that

1308: the qualitative conclusions of importance of the minijet production to

1309: flow variables would remain unchanged.

1310: 

1311: We therefore conclude that minijets give a large contribution to the

1312: elliptic flow extracted using current flow analysis methods, probably

1313: accounting for most of the flow at large $p_T$ (see

1314: \fig{ptfig}). Differential elliptic flow appears to be sensitive to

1315: saturation physics of the early stages of the collisions. To study QGP

1316: it would be very useful to invent a method of flow analysis that would

1317: be insensitive to minijet contribution and would only measure the

1318: collective effects due to elliptic flow \cite{ollie1,ollie2}. We have

1319: to note, however, that if one tries to calculate the double inclusive

1320: minijet production cross section in the saturation approach

1321: \cite{mv,claa,yuaa} many of the diagrams that would contribute would 

1322: reduce to independent production of two gluons which would then

1323: exchange a gluon with each other. This $2 \rightarrow 2$ process would

1324: constitute the first step in the onset of thermalization

1325: \cite{bmss}. Therefore it appears that correlated production of pairs 

1326: of minijets may be intrinsically related to thermalization. On one

1327: hand this implies that the minijet flow of \eq{V2} is partially due to

1328: collective effects after all. On the other hand it may be impossible

1329: to create an observable which would distinguish these early stage

1330: thermalization effects from the flow of the fully thermalized

1331: quark-gluon plasma.

1332: 

1333: 

1334: 

1335: 

1336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1337: %\newpage

1338: %\vskip0.3cm

1339: \section*{Acknowledgements} 

1340: 

1341: The authors would like to thank Adrian Dumitru, Miklos Gyulassy, Dima

1342: Kharzeev, Roy Lacey, Larry McLerran, Jean-Yves Ollitrault, and Jan Rak

1343: for stimulating and informative discussions. Our thanks go to Derek

1344: Teaney and Raju Venugopalan for pointing out to us a numerical error

1345: in the earlier version of the paper.

1346: 

1347: The work of Yu. K. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of

1348: Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-97ER41014 and by the BSF grant $\#$

1349: 9800276 with Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli

1350: Academy of Science and Humanities. The work of K. T. was sponsored in

1351: part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant

1352: No. DE-FG03-00ER41132.

1353: 

1354: 

1355: \vskip0.3cm

1356: 

1357: 

1358: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1359: 

1360: \bibitem{glrmq} L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin,

1361:   Phys. Rep. {\bf 100}, 1 (1983); A.H. Mueller,

1362: J.-W. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B268}, 427 (1986).

1363: 

1364: \bibitem {mv} 

1365: L.\ McLerran and R.\ Venugopalan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 2233

1366: (1994); {\bf 49}, 3352 (1994); {\bf 50}, 2225 (1994).

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{qgp}

1369: E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. {\bf B78}, 150 (1978); L.D. McLerran,

1370: B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 24}, 450 (1981).

1371: 

1372: \bibitem{yuri} 

1373: Yu.V.\ Kovchegov, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 5463 (1996); {\bf 55}, 5445

1374: (1997).

1375: 

1376: \bibitem {jklw} 

1377: J.\ Jalilian-Marian, A.\ Kovner, L.\ McLerran, and 

1378: H.\ Weigert, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 5414 (1997). 

1379: 

1380: \bibitem{claa} 

1381: A.\ Kovner, L.\ McLerran, and H.\ Weigert, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52},

1382: 6231 (1995); {\bf 52}, 3809 (1995); M. Gyulassy, L. McLerran,

1383: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 56}, 2219 (1997); Yu.V.\ Kovchegov, D. H. Rischke,

1384: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 56}, 1084 (1997); X. Guo, Phys. Rev, D {\bf 59},

1385: 094017 (1999).

1386: 

1387: \bibitem{kv} A. Krasnitz, R. Venugopalan, Report No. hep-ph/0007108; 

1388: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4309 (2000); Nucl. Phys. {\bf B557}, 237

1389: (1999); A. Krasnitz, Y. Nara, R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1390: 87}, 192302 (2001). 

1391: 

1392: \bibitem{yuaa}

1393: Yu. V. Kovchegov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A692}, 557 (2001); Nucl. Phys. {\bf

1394: A698}, 619c (2002).

1395: 

1396: \bibitem{bk}

1397: I. I. Balitsky, Report No. hep-ph/9706411; Nucl. Phys. {\bf B463}, 99

1398: (1996); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 014020 (1999); Yu. V. Kovchegov,

1399: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 034008 (1999); D {\bf 61}, 074018 (2000).

1400: 

1401: \bibitem{satevol}

1402: E. Levin and K. Tuchin, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B573}, 833 (2000);

1403: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A691}, 779 (2001); Nucl. Phys. {\bf A693}, 787

1404: (2001); M. A. Braun, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 16}, 337 (2000);

1405: hep-ph/0010041; hep-ph/0101070; K. Golec-Biernat, L. Motyka,

1406: A.M. Stasto, hep-ph/0110325.

1407: 

1408: \bibitem{jimwlk}

1409: J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H.  Weigert,

1410: Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 034007 (1999); E. Ferreiro, E. Iancu,

1411: A. Leonidov, L. McLerran, hep-ph/0109115 and references therein.

1412: 

1413: \bibitem{dn}

1414: D. Kharzeev, M. Nardi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B507}, 121 (2001).  

1415: 

1416: \bibitem{dgn}

1417: D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B523}, 79 (2001); D. Kharzeev,

1418: E. Levin, M. Nardi, hep-ph/0111315.

1419: 

1420: 

1421: \bibitem{muller}

1422: B.\ M\"uller, Rep.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 58}, 611 (1995).

1423: 

1424: \bibitem{lattice}

1425: F.\ Karsch, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 34}, 63 (1994);

1426: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 3791 (1994); \\

1427: E.\ Laermann, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A610}, 1c (1996).

1428: 

1429: \bibitem{bmss} 

1430: R. Baier, A.H. Mueller, D. Schiff, D.T. Son, Phys. Lett. {\bf B502},

1431: 51 (2001); A.H. Mueller, Phys. Lett. {\bf B475}, 220 (2000);

1432: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B572}, 227 (2000). 

1433: 

1434: \bibitem{klm}

1435: Yu. V. Kovchegov, E. Levin, L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63},

1436: 024903 (2001).

1437: 

1438: \bibitem{elfl}

1439: M. Gyulassy, K. A. Frankel, and H. St\"{o}cker, Phys. Lett, {\bf

1440: 110B}, 185 (1982); P. Danielewicz and G. Odyniec, Phys. Lett. {\bf

1441: B157}, 146 (1985); J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 229

1442: (1992); for a review, see J.-Y. Ollitrault, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A638},

1443: 195c (1998).

1444: 

1445: \bibitem{na49}

1446: H. Appelsh\"{a}user {\it et al.}, (NA49 Collaboration),

1447: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 4136 (1998).

1448: 

1449: \bibitem{wa98}

1450: M. M. Aggarwal {\it et al.}, (WA98 Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. {\bf

1451: A663}, 729 (2000). 

1452: 

1453: \bibitem{pho}

1454: Inkyu C. Park for the PHOBOS Collaboration,

1455: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A698}, 564 (2002).

1456: 

1457: \bibitem{star}

1458: STAR Collaboration, K.H. Ackermann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86},

1459: 402 (2001); STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1460: 87}, 182301 (2001).

1461: 

1462: \bibitem{phenix}

1463: Roy A. Lacey for the PHENIX Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A698}, 559

1464: (2002).

1465: 

1466: \bibitem{huov}

1467: P.F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. Huovinen, K.J. Eskola, K. Tuominen,

1468: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A696}, 197 (2001); P. Huovinen, P.F. Kolb,

1469: U. W. Heinz, P.V. Ruuskanen, S.A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B503}, 58

1470: (2001); P.F. Kolb, P. Huovinen, U. W. Heinz, H. Heiselberg,

1471: Phys. Lett. {\bf B500}, 232 (2001). 

1472: 

1473: \bibitem{teaney}

1474: D.~Teaney and E.V.~Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 4951;

1475: D. Teaney, J. Lauret, E.V. Shuryak, nucl-th/0110037;

1476: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4783 (2001). 

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{starsn}

1479: R.J.M. Snellings for the STAR Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A698},

1480: 193 (2002).

1481: 

1482: \bibitem{gvw}

1483: M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2537

1484: (2001); X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63}, 054902 (2001); M. Gyulassy,

1485: I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, P. Huovinen, Phys. Lett. {\bf B526}, 301 (2002);

1486: D. Molnar, M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A697}, 495 (2002).

1487: 

1488: \bibitem{glvbdmps}

1489: M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 5535 (2000)

1490: and references therein; R.~Baier, Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, A.~H.~Mueller and

1491: D.~Schiff, JHEP {\bf 0109}, 033 (2001) and references therein.

1492: 

1493: \bibitem{tv}

1494: D. Teaney, R. Venugopalan, hep-ph/0203208.  

1495: 

1496: \bibitem{vz}

1497: S. Voloshin, Y. Zhang, Z. Phys. {\bf C70}, 665 (1996). 

1498: 

1499: \bibitem{pv}

1500: A.M. Poskanzer, S.A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 1671 (1998) and

1501: references therein.

1502: 

1503: \bibitem{ollie1}

1504: N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63},

1505: 054906 (2001); C {\bf 64}, 054901 (2001); hep-ph/0111402.

1506: 

1507: \bibitem{ollie2}

1508: N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62},

1509: 034902 (2000); P. M. Dinh, N. Borghini, J.-Y. Ollitrault,

1510: Phys. Lett. {\bf B477}, 51 (2000).

1511: 

1512: \bibitem{wang}

1513: S. Wang {et al}., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1091 (1991). 

1514: 

1515: \bibitem{bdopv}

1516: N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, J.-Y. Ollitrault, A.M. Poskanzer,

1517: S.A. Voloshin, nucl-th/0202013.

1518: 

1519: \bibitem{tang}

1520: A.H. Tang, hep-ex/0108029. 

1521: 

1522: \bibitem{Mue}

1523: A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B335}, 115 (1990). 

1524: 

1525: \bibitem{meM}

1526: Yu. V. Kovchegov, A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B529}, 451 (1998).

1527: 

1528: \bibitem{kt}

1529: Yu. V. Kovchegov, K. Tuchin, hep-ph/0111362. 

1530: 

1531: \bibitem{coll}

1532: J. P. Blaizot, A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 289}, 847 (1987);

1533: K. J. Eskola, K. Kajantie, and J. Lindfors,  Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 323}, 37 (1989).

1534: 

1535: \bibitem{coll2}

1536: K. J. Eskola, V.J. Kolhinen, and P.V. Ruuskanen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B

1537: 535}, 351 (1998); K.J. Eskola, V.J. Kolhinen, C.A. Salgado,

1538: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C9}, 61 (1999); N. Hammon, H. Stocker, W. Greiner,

1539: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 014901 (2000).

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{BFKL}

1542: E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin, {\em Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf

1543: 45}, 199 (1977); Ya.Ya. Balitsky and L.N. Lipatov, {\em Sov. J. Nucl.

1544: Phys.} {\bf 28}, 22 (1978).

1545: 

1546: \bibitem{NLO}

1547: V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 429}, 127 (1998);

1548: M. Ciafaloni and G. Camici, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 430}, 349 (1998).

1549: 

1550: \bibitem{leostr}

1551: A. Leonidov and D. Ostrovsky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 094009 (2000);

1552: hep-ph/9811417; Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C11}, 495 (1999);

1553: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C16}, 683 (2000).

1554: 

1555: \bibitem{lr}

1556: E.M. Levin, M.G. Ryskin, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 21}, 1072 (1975).

1557: 

1558: \bibitem{coll3}

1559: K.J. Eskola, K. Kajantie, P.V. Ruuskanen, K. Tuominen, hep-ph/0204034;

1560: K.J. Eskola, K. Kajantie, K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A700}, 509

1561: (2002).

1562: 

1563: \bibitem{hijing}

1564: M. Gyulassy, X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 3501 (1991);

1565: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 844 (1992); Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 83}, 307

1566: (1994).

1567: 

1568: \bibitem{dglap}

1569: V.N.~Gribov and L.N.~Lipatov, Sov.~J.~Nucl.~Phys. {\bf

1570: 15},~438~(1972); G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi, Nucl.~Phys. {\bf

1571: B~126},~298~(1977); Yu.L.~Dokshitzer, Sov.~Phys.~JETP {\bf

1572: 46},~641~(1977).

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{Mueller2}

1575: A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B572}, 227 (2000). 

1576: 

1577: \bibitem{geom} 

1578: A.M. Stasto, K. Golec-Biernat and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1579: 86}, 596 (2001).

1580: 

1581: \bibitem{larry}

1582: E. Iancu, K. Itakura, L. McLerran, hep-ph/0203137.

1583: 

1584: \bibitem{lub}

1585: E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A696}, 833 (2001);

1586: M. Lublinsky, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C21}, 513 (2001).

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{jr}

1589: PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al, nucl-ex/0204005; J. Rak, {\it

1590: High-$p_T$ charged particles azimuthal correlation in PHENIX},

1591: Proceedings of the International Workshop XXX on Gross Properties of

1592: Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations Hirschegg, Austria, 2002; R. A. Lacey,

1593: {\it Elliptic Flow Measurements with the PHENIX Detector}, Proceedings

1594: of the 15th International Conference on Ultrarelativistic

1595: Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (QM2001), Stony Brook, New York, 2001,

1596: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A698}, 559 (2002).

1597: 

1598: \bibitem{us}

1599: Yu. V. Kovchegov, K. L. Tuchin, in preparation. 

1600: 

1601: \end{thebibliography}

1602: \end{document}

1603: