1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[prc]{revtex4}

4: 

5: \topmargin -1cm

6: 

7: % \usepackage{espcrc2}

8: \usepackage{graphicx}

9: 

10:  \newcommand\la{\langle}

11:  \newcommand\ra{\rangle}

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

13:  \newcommand\noi{\noindent}

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

15:  \newcommand\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

16:  \newcommand\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

17:  \newcommand{\doublespace} {

18:  \renewcommand{\baselinestretch} {1.6}

19: \large\normalsize}

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

21: 

22: \def\doublespace{\def\baselinestretch{1.6}\large\normalsize}

23: \def\normalspace{\def\baselinestretch{1.0}\normalsize}

24: \def\Address#1#2{$^{\rm#1}${\it\footnotesize#2}\\}

25: \def\Ref#1{(\ref{#1})}

26: \def\Caption#1{

27:   \normalspace

28:   \begin{quotation}\caption{\sl #1}\end{quotation}

29:   \doublespace

30: }

31: 

32: \def\sq{\sigma^N_{\bar qq}}

33: \def\mb{\,\mbox{mb}}

34: \def\fm{\,\mbox{fm}}

35: \def\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}

36: \def\TeV{\,\mbox{TeV}}

37: \def\eps{\varepsilon}

38: \def\inf{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}}

39: \def\Jpsi{J\!/\!\psi}

40: \def\Pom{{\bf I\!P}}

41: \def\Reg{{\bf I\!R}}

42: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

43:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

44: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

45:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

46: 

47: 

48: \begin{document}

49: 

50: 

51: 

52: \title{Breakdown of QCD factorization at large Feynman \boldmath$x$}

53: 

54: 

55: \author{B.Z.~Kopeliovich$^{a,b}$}

56: \author{J.~Nemchik$^c$}

57: \author{I.K.~Potashnikova$^{a,b}$}

58: \author{M.B.~Johnson$^d$}

59: \author{Ivan~Schmidt$^a$}

60: 

61: \affiliation{$^a$Departamento de Fisica, Universidad Tecnica

62: Santa Maria, Valparaiso, Chile\\

63: $^b$Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany\\

64: $^c$Institute of Experimental Physics SAV, Kosice, Slovakia\\

65: $^d$Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}

66: 

67: \date{\today}

68: 

69: \begin{abstract}

70: 

71:  Recent measurements by the BRAHMS collaboration of high-$p_T$ hadron

72: production at forward rapidities at RHIC found the relative production

73: rate $(d-Au)/(p-p)$ to be suppressed, rather than enhanced. Examining

74: other known reactions (forward production of light hadrons, the Drell-Yan

75: process, heavy flavor production, etc.), one notes that all of these

76: display a similar property, namely, their cross sections in nuclei are

77: suppressed at large $x_F$.  Since this is the region where $x_2$ is

78: minimal, it is tempting to interpret this as a manifestation of coherence,

79: or of a color glass condensate, whereas it is actually a simple

80: consequence of energy conservation and takes place even at low energies.

81: We demonstrate that in all these reactions there is a common suppression

82: mechanism that can be viewed, alternatively, as a consequence of a reduced

83: survival probability for large rapidity gap processes in nuclei, Sudakov

84: suppression, an enhanced resolution of higher Fock states by nuclei, or an

85: effective energy loss that rises linearly with energy. Our calculations

86: agree with data.

87: 

88: \end{abstract}

89: 

90: \pacs{24.85.+p, 12.40.Gg, 25.40.Ve, 25.80.Ls}

91: 

92: \maketitle

93: 

94: \section{Introduction}

95: 

96: It is believed that in order to reach the smallest values of the

97: light-front momentum fraction variable $x$ in nuclei, and thus access the

98: strongest coherence effects such as those associated with shadowing or the

99: color glass condensate, one should go to forward rapidities, i.e., to the

100: beam fragmentation region at large Feynman $x_F$. This probably was the

101: idea behind the measurements of high-$p_T$ hadron production in

102: deuteron-gold collisions at large rapidities performed recently by the

103: BRAHMS collaboration \cite{brahms} at RHIC.

104: 

105: This proposition is based upon the usual leading order relation between

106: $x_1$ and $x_2$ for two colliding partons, $x_1\,x_2=\hat s/s$, where

107: $\hat s$ and $s$ are the square of the c.m. energies of the colliding

108: partons and hadrons, respectively. It is demonstrated in

109: Sect.~\ref{shadowing}, however, that although formally $x_2$ reaches its

110: minimal values as $x_1\to 1$, the coherence phenomena vanish in this limit

111: \cite{e-loss}.

112: 

113: Moreover, it is shown in Sect.~\ref{sudakov} that another effect causing

114: considerable nuclear suppression for any reaction at large $x_F$ can be

115: easily misinterpreted as coherence. The source of this suppression may be

116: understood in terms of the Sudakov form factor, which is the probability

117: that no particles be produced as $x_F\to 1$, as demanded by energy

118: conservation. Clearly, multiple interactions make it more difficult to

119: satisfy this condition and therefore should cause an even greater

120: suppression.

121: 

122: Spectator partons, both soft and hard, may also interact while propagating

123: through the nucleus and populate the large rapidity gap (LRG) that forms

124: when $x_F\to 1$. As long as production within the LRG is forbidden, the

125: presence of spectators further reduces the survival probability of LRG

126: processes \cite{maor}.

127: 

128: This mechanism of suppression can also be understood in terms of the

129: Fock-state decomposition of the nucleus. The dominant Fock components are

130: determined by the resolution of the interaction, and a nucleus can resolve

131: more Fock states than a proton since the saturation scale $Q_s$ rises with

132: $A$. Thus, one can see that the leading parton distribution involves

133: higher multiparton Fock states in a nucleus and must fall more steeply

134: toward $x_F=1$, as suggested by the Blankenbecler-Brodsky counting rule

135: \cite{bb} (see also \cite{bf,bs}).

136: 

137: Note that this situation is analogous to what happens when one of the

138: bound nucleons in a relativistic nucleus is moving with a momentum higher

139: than the average momentum of an individual nucleon. This is the mechanism

140: of production of particles with $x_F>1$ in nuclear collisions \cite{bs}.

141: 

142: The involvement of higher Fock states means that gluon bremsstrahlung is

143: more intense in the interaction on a nucleus than on a proton target, i.e.

144: leads to larger energy loss.  Because of this, the large-$x_F$ suppression

145: may be envisioned to be a consequence of induced energy loss. Remarkably,

146: such an induced energy loss proportional to energy results in $x_F$

147: scaling. This is different from the energy-independent mean rate of energy

148: loss found in \cite{n,bh,bdms}. The latter, however, was calculated with

149: no restriction on the gluon radiation spectrum, a procedure that is not

150: appropriate when $x_F\to 1$ \cite{knp,knph}. 

151: 

152: The nuclear effects under discussion violate QCD factorization. This

153: happens because any hard reaction is a LRG process in the limit $x_F\to

154: 1$, e.g. gluon radiation, is forbidden by energy conservation throughout a

155: rather large rapidity interval. On the other hand, factorization relates

156: this process to the parton distribution functions measured in other

157: reactions, for instance deep-inelastic scattering (DIS), which do not have

158: such a restriction. The light-cone dipole description employed here does

159: not involve a twist decomposition, but apparently the lack of

160: factorization does not disappear with increasing scale. This will be

161: confirmed below by explicit calculations for different hard reactions.

162: 

163: Thus, we conclude that the nuclear suppression imposed by energy

164: conservation as $x_F\to 1$ is a leading twist effect, breaking QCD

165: factorization. This is at variance with the conclusion of \cite{hoyer},

166: made on the basis of observed violation of $x_2$ scaling in $J/\Psi$

167: production off nuclei and assuming validity of the factorization theorem

168: \cite{factorization} even in the limit $x_F\to 1$.

169: 

170: Note that factorization is broken even for reactions on a free proton. For

171: instance, the Drell-Yan reaction, which is a LRG process as $x_F\to 1$,

172: cannot be expressed in terms of hadronic structure functions measured in

173: deep-inelastic scattering.

174: 

175: 

176: \section{Disappearance of nuclear shadowing at smallest

177: \boldmath$x_2$}\label{shadowing}

178: 

179: It is convenient to study shadowing and other coherence effects in the

180: rest frame of the nucleus. In this frame, the parameter controlling the

181: interference between amplitudes of the hard reaction occurring on

182: different nucleons is the longitudinal momentum transfer, $q_L$, related

183: to the coherence length, $l_c=1/q_L$. The condition for the appearance of

184: shadowing in a hard reaction is the presence of a coherence length that is

185: long compared to the nuclear radius, $l_c\gsim R_A$.

186: 

187: Clearly at large $x_1\sim 1$, a hard reaction is mediated by a projectile

188: valence quark and looks like a hard excitation of the valence quark in

189: this reference frame. For instance, the Drell-Yan (DY) process looks like

190: radiation of a heavy photon/dilepton by a valence quark \cite{hir}. The

191: coherence length in this case is related to the mean lifetime of a

192: fluctuation $q\to q\bar ll$ and reads \cite{hir,e-loss},

193:  \beq

194: l_c=\frac{2E_q\,\alpha(1-\alpha)}

195: {k_T^2+(1-\alpha)M_{\bar ll}^2+\alpha^2\,m_q^2}\ .

196: \label{10}

197:  \eeq

198:  Here $\vec k_T$ and $\alpha$ are the transverse momentum and the fraction

199: of the light-cone momentum of the quark carried by the dilepton; $M_{\bar

200: ll}$ is the effective mass of the dilepton; and $E_q=x_q\,s/2m_N$ and

201: $m_q$ are the energy and mass of the projectile valence quark. This simple

202: kinematic formula reflects the relation between the longitudinal momentum

203: transfer $q_L=(M_{q\bar ll}^2-m_q^2)/2E_q$ and the coherence length

204: $l_c=1/q_L$. Note that the fraction of the proton momentum $x_q$ carried

205: by the valence quark in this reference frame is not equal to $x_1$, but

206: $\alpha x_q=x_1$.  Clearly, when $x_1\to 1$, also $\alpha\to 1$, i.e. the

207: coherence length Eq.~(\ref{10}) vanishes in this limit, and no shadowing

208: is possible.

209: 

210: The onset of shadowing as function of rising coherence length can be

211: approximated with good accuracy as,

212:  \beq

213: R^{shad}_{A/N} \approx

214: 1\,-\, {1\over4}\,\sigma_{eff}\,\la T\ra\,F_A^2(q_L)\ ,

215: \label{12}

216:  \eeq

217:  Here $R_{A/N}$ is the normalized ratio of the reaction rates on nuclear

218: and nucleon targets. $F_A(q_c)$ may be called the longitudinal nuclear

219: form factor, defined as

220:  \beq F_A^2(q_L) = \frac{1}{\la T_A \ra}\,

221: \int d^2b\, \left|\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz\,

222: e^{iz/l_c}\,\rho_A(b,z)\right|^2,

223:  \label{14}

224:  \eeq

225:  where $\la T_A \ra=1/A\int d^2b\,T^2_A(b)$ is the nuclear thickness

226: $T_A(b)$ averaged over impact parameter $b$ and is evaluated as the

227: integral of the nuclear density over the longitudinal coordinate,

228: $T_A(b)=\int dz\,\rho_A(b,z)$. The effective cross section

229:  \beq

230: \sigma_{eff}(x_1,x_2,s)=\frac{\left\la

231: \sigma^2_{\bar qq}(\alpha r_T)\right\ra}

232: {\left\la

233: \sigma_{\bar qq}(\alpha r_T)\right\ra}\ ,

234: \label{13}

235: \eeq

236:  was evaluated in \cite{e-loss}.

237: 

238: With the mean value of $l_c$ given by Eq.~(\ref{14}), the

239: nucleus-to-deuteron ratios of DY cross sections are presented for

240: different nuclei in Fig.~\ref{shad-4.5} \cite{e-loss}.

241:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

242: \special{psfile=shad-4.ps angle=0. voffset=-225. hoffset=0.

243: hscale=40. vscale=40.}

244: \vspace{6.5cm}

245: {\caption[Delta]

246:  {Shadowing in DY reaction on carbon, iron and tungsten as function of

247: $x_2$ at $M_{\bar ll}=4.5\,GeV$ and $s=1600\GeV^2$. Nuclear shadowing

248: disappears both at large and small $x_2$, since the coherence length,

249: Eq.~(\ref{10}), vanishes in both limits.}

250:  \label{shad-4.5}}

251:  \end{figure}

252: 

253:  As expected, in accordance with Eq.~(\ref{10}), shadowing vanishes at the

254: smallest value of $x_2$ that can be accessed in DY reactions, while

255: according to QCD factorization it is expected to reach maximal strength.

256: 

257:  Note that the shrinkage of the coherence length towards $x_F=1$ does not

258: only lead to the disappearance of shadowing in this kinematic limit, but

259: also reduces shadowing in DY compared to DIS throughout the entire range

260: of $x_2$.

261: 

262: Note that the coherence length Eq.~(\ref{10}) linearly rises with energy,

263: therefore the interval of $x_1$, where the coherence length contracts down

264: to the nuclear size, shrinks like $1/E$ (see Sect.~\ref{gl-sh}).

265: 

266: \section{Sudakov suppression, or survival probability of large rapidity

267: gaps}\label{sudakov}

268: 

269: The BRAHMS experiment \cite{brahms} found a substantial nuclear

270: suppression for negative hadrons produced with high $p_T$ at large

271: pseudorapidity $\eta=3.2$, instead of the usual enhancement (see

272: Fig.~\ref{brahms}). Since the data cover rather small $x_2\sim 10^{-3}$,

273: it is tempting to interpret the suppression as either a result of

274: saturation \cite{glr,al} or the color glass condensate \cite{mv}, expected

275: in some models \cite{kkt}.

276: 

277: Note, however, that the data span a region of rather large $x_F$, where

278: all known reactions, both hard and soft, show considerable nuclear

279: suppression. Moreover, available data indicate that this effect scales

280: with $x_F$, rather than with $x_2$, as one would expect if the scaling

281: were the net effect of coherence.

282: 

283: Indeed, the collection \cite{barton,geist,data} of data depicted in

284: Fig.~\ref{geist} for the production of different species of hadrons in

285: $pA$ collisions at different energies, with the nuclear dependence

286: parametrized as $A^\alpha$, exhibit universality and $x_F$ scaling.

287: 

288: Data from the E866 experiment at Fermilab for nuclear effects in $J/\Psi$

289: and $\Psi^\prime$ production \cite{e866-psi}, shown in Fig.~\ref{psi},

290: also exhibit a strong suppression that is seen to scale in $x_F$ compared

291: to lower-energy data \cite{na3} and that appears universal when compared

292: with $\Psi^\prime$ \cite{e866-psi}. Recent measurements of nuclear effects

293: for $J/\Psi$ production in $D-Au$ collisions by the PHENIX collaboration

294: \cite{psi-qm} at RHIC are consistent with $x_F$ scaling, but they exhibit

295: a dramatic violation of $x_2$ scaling when compared with the $E866$ data

296: \cite{e866-psi}.

297: 

298: The DY reaction is also known to be considerably suppressed at large $x_F$

299: \cite{e-loss}, as one can see in Fig.~\ref{dy}. Unfortunately, no data

300: sufficiently accurate to test $x_F$ scaling are available at other

301: energies.

302: 

303: There is a feature common to all these reactions; namely, when the final

304: particle is produced with $x_F\to 1$, insufficient energy is left to

305: produce anything else. As a class, such events are usually called large

306: rapidity gap processes. Obviously, the restriction of energy conservation

307: may cause substantial suppression.  This is analogous to what happens in

308: QED when elastic electron scattering occurs with no bremsstrahlung within

309: a given resolution; it is described by what is known as the Sudakov form

310: factor.  The LRG cross section is more strongly suppressed as the

311: resolution improves.

312: 

313: If a large-$x_F$ particle is produced, the rapidity interval to be kept

314: empty is $\Delta y=-\ln(1-x_F)$. We describe particle production via

315: perturbative gluon radiation \cite{gb} with subsequent nonperturbative

316: hadronization.  Assuming as usual an uncorrelated Poisson distribution for

317: gluons, the Sudakov suppression factor, i.e. the probability to have a

318: rapidity gap $\Delta y$, becomes

319:  \beq

320: S(\Delta y) = e^{-\la n_G(\Delta y)\ra}\ ,

321: \label{20}

322:  \eeq

323:  where in our case $n_G(\Delta y)$ is the mean number of gluons that would

324: be radiated within $\Delta y$ if energy conservation were not an issue.

325: 

326: Note that even in the case where no gluon is radiated within the rapidity

327: gap, the hadronization can easily fill the gap with particles. The

328: probability that this does not happen is another suppression factor which,

329: however, is independent of target and cancels in the nucleus-to-proton

330: ratio.

331: 

332: The mean number $\la n_G(\Delta y)\ra$ of gluons radiated in the rapidity

333: interval $\Delta y$ is related to the height of the plateau in the gluon

334: spectrum, $\la n_G(\Delta y)\ra=\Delta y\,dn_G/dy$. Then, the Sudakov

335: factor acquires the simple form,

336:  \beq

337: S(x_F) = (1-x_F)^{dn_G/dy}\ .

338: \label{40}

339:  \eeq

340:  The height of the gluon plateau was estimated by Gunion and Bertsch

341: \cite{gb} as,

342:  \beq

343: \frac{dn_G}{dy} = \frac{3\alpha_s}{\pi}\,

344: \ln\left(\frac{m_\rho^2}{\Lambda_{QCD}^2}\right)\ .

345: \label{50}

346:  \eeq

347:  The value of $\alpha_s$ was fitted \cite{gb} to data on pion multiplicity

348: in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, where it was found that $\alpha_s=0.45$. This is

349: close to the critical value $\alpha_s=\alpha_c=0.43$ \cite{gribov} and to

350: the value $\la \alpha_s\ra=0.38$ calculated within a model of small

351: gluonic spots when averaged over the gluon radiation spectrum \cite{k3p}.

352: For further calculations we take $\alpha_s=0.4$, which gives with high

353: accuracy $dn_G/dy=1$, i.e. the Sudakov factor,

354:  \beq

355: S(x_F)=1-x_F\ .

356: \label{60}

357:  \eeq

358: Amazingly, this coincides with the suppression factor applied to

359: every additional Pomeron exchange in the quark-gluon string

360: \cite{kaidalov} and dual parton \cite{capella} models based on the

361: Regge approach.

362: 

363: Clearly, on a nuclear target, the Sudakov suppression factor should fall

364: more steeply as $x_F\to 1$ since multiple interactions enhance the

365: transverse kick given to the projectile parton and therefore tend to shake

366: off (i.e.  to radiate) more gluons. This can be understood in terms of the

367: Fock state decomposition. Specifically, according to the counting rules

368: \cite{bb}, the behavior of the single parton distribution function for

369: $x_1\to 1$ depends on the number of constituents in the particular Fock

370: state. A nucleus having a higher resolution, controlled by the saturation

371: scale $Q_s$ \cite{mv,al}, resolves more constituents and thus results in a

372: steeper fall off of the distribution function toward $x_1=1$.

373: 

374: We come to the nontrivial conclusion that the effective parton

375: distribution function in the beam hadron depends on the target. Such a

376: process-dependence constitutes an apparent breakdown of QCD factorization

377: and is a leading twist effect.

378: 

379: One can also formulate this suppression as $x_F\to 1$ as a survival

380: probability of the LRG in multiple interactions with the nucleus. Clearly,

381: every additional inelastic interaction contributes an extra suppression

382: factor $S(x_F)$. The probability of an n-fold inelastic collision is

383: related to the Glauber model coefficients via the

384: Abramovsky-Gribov-Kancheli (AGK)  cutting rules \cite{agk}.

385: Correspondingly, the survival probability at impact parameter $\vec b$

386: reads,

387:  \beqn

388: W^{hA}_{LRG}(b) &=&

389: \exp[-\sigma_{in}^{hN}\,T_A(b)]

390: \nonumber\\ &\times&

391: \sum\limits_{n=1}^A\frac{1}{n!}\,

392: \left[\sigma_{in}^{hN}\,T_A(b)\,

393: S^n(x_F)\right]^n\ .

394:  \label{70}

395:  \eeqn

396:  In this expression particles (gluons) are assume to be produced

397: independently in multiple rescattering, i.e. in Bethe-Heitler regime. Of

398: course it should be corrected for effects of coherence which turn out to

399: be either small or absent, i.e. can be neglected. Indeed, at small $x_F$

400: the Sudakov factor $S(x_F\to0)\to 1$, and Eq.~(\ref{70}) takes the form of

401: the standard Glauber expression for absorptive hadron-nucleus cross

402: section. In this case the coherence effects are known as Gribov inelastic

403: shadowing corrections which are known to be quite small, few percent 

404: \cite{mine}.

405: 

406: In another limiting case $x_F\to 1$ energy conservation allows only

407: radiation of low-energy gluons having short coherence time. Therefore,

408: particles are produced incoherently in multiple interactions, and

409: Eq.~(\ref{70}) is legitimate.

410: 

411: At large $x_F\sim 1$, Eq.~(\ref{70}) is dominated by the first term;

412: therefore, integrating over impact parameter, one gets for the

413: nucleus-to-proton ratio, $R_{A/p}(x_F\to1)\sim A^{1/3}$. This expectation

414: is confirmed by a measurement \cite{helios} of the $A$-dependence of the

415: cross section for the LRG process $pA\to pX$, quasi-free diffractive

416: excitation of the nucleus. The single diffraction cross section was found

417: to be

418:  \beq

419: \sigma^{pA}_{diff} = \int\limits_{0.925}^1

420: dx_F\,\frac{d\sigma(pA\to pX)}{dx_F}=

421: \sigma_0\,A^\alpha,

422: \label{80}

423:  \eeq

424:  with $\alpha=0.34\pm0.02$, consistent with the above expectation.

425: 

426: \section{Production of leading hadrons with small

427: \boldmath$p_T$}\label{small-pt}

428: 

429: The collection of data from \cite{barton,geist,data} for the production of

430: different species of particles in $pA$ collisions, depicted in

431: Fig.~\ref{geist}, exhibits quite strong and universal nuclear suppression

432: at large $x_F$. Moreover, these data spanning the lab energy range from 70

433: to 400 GeV, demonstrate that the nuclear effects scale in $x_F$.

434:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

435: \special{psfile=geist.ps  angle=0. voffset=-265. hoffset=-10.

436: hscale=40. vscale=40.}

437: \vspace{7.5cm}

438: {\caption[Delta]

439:  {The exponent describing the $A$-dependence ($\propto A^\alpha$) of the

440: ratio for the production of different hadrons in $p-Au$ relative to $pp$

441: collisions as function of $x_F$. The collection of data and references can

442: be found in \cite{barton,geist,data}. The curve is a result of a parameter

443: free calculation using Eq.~(\ref{120}).}

444:  \label{geist}}

445:  \end{figure}

446: 

447: It is natural to relate the observed suppression to the dynamics discussed

448: above, which is close to the description of soft inclusive reactions

449: within the quark-gluon string \cite{kaidalov}, or dual parton

450: \cite{capella} models.

451: 

452:  The nuclear effects can be calculated summing oven $n$ and integrating

453: over impact parameter in Eq.~(\ref{70}),

454:  \beqn

455:  R_{A/N}(x_F) &=&

456: \frac{1}{(1-x_F)\sigma_{abs}A}

457: \int d^2b\,e^{-\sigma_{abs}T_A(b)}\,

458: \nonumber\\ &\times&

459: \left[e^{(1-x_F)\sigma_{abs}\,T_A(b)}

460: -1\right].

461: \label{120}

462:  \eeqn

463:  In the Glauber model, the effective cross section is the familiar

464: inelastic $NN$ scattering cross section.  However, the actual number of

465: collisions, which determines the value of the effective absorption cross

466: section, is subject to considerable modification from Gribov's inelastic

467: shadowing corrections, which make the nuclear medium substantially more

468: transparent.  These corrections considerably reduce both the number of

469: collisions and the effective absorption cross section $\sigma_{abs}$

470: \cite{mine,kps}.

471: 

472: In order to compare with data, the nuclear effects are parametrized as

473: $R_{A/N}\propto A^\alpha$, where $\alpha$ varies with $A$. We use A=40,

474: for which the Gribov corrections evaluated in \cite{kps} lead to an

475: effective absorption cross section $\sigma_{abs}\approx 20\mb$. Then the

476: simple expression Eq.~(\ref{120}) explains the observed $x_F$ scaling and

477: describes rather well the data depicted in Fig.~\ref{geist}.

478: 

479: One may wonder why $\alpha(x_F)$ plotted in Fig.~\ref{geist} does not

480: reach values as small as $1/3$, even when $x_F\to 1$. As mentioned, this

481: exponent varies with $A$, and simple geometrical considerations may be

482: accurate only for sufficiently heavy nuclei. In the case of diffraction

483: \cite{kps}, there is a specific enhancement of the effective absorption

484: cross section that makes $\alpha$ smaller in this case, in good accord

485: with data \cite{helios}.

486: 

487: Note that our description is very close to that in the dual parton model

488: (or quark-gluon string model) \cite{bckt}. However, we present a different

489: interpretation of the same phenomena and introduce Gribov corrections for

490: inelastic shadowing, which substantially reduce the number of collisions.

491: 

492: \section{High-\boldmath$p_T$ hadron production at forward rapidities,

493: the BRAHMS data}\label{large-pt}

494: 

495: The BRAHMS collaboration performed measurements of nuclear effects for

496: production of negative hadrons at pseudorapidity $\eta=3.2$ and transverse

497: momentum up to $p_T\approx 4\GeV$. Instead of the usual Cronin enhancement

498: a suppression was found, as one can see from Fig.~\ref{brahms}.

499:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

500: \special{psfile=eta3.2.ps angle=0. voffset=-255. hoffset=0.

501: hscale=40. vscale=40.}

502: \vspace{7cm}

503: {\caption[Delta]

504:  {Ratio of negative particle production rates in $d-Au$ and $pp$

505: collisions as function of $p_T$. Data are from \cite{brahms}, solid and

506: dashed curves correspond to calculations with the diquark size $0.3\fm$

507: and $0.4\fm$ respectively. }

508:  \label{brahms}}

509:  \end{figure}

510: 

511: First, consider the rather strong suppression of the data at small $p_T$.

512: One can understand this in terms of the simple relation for the

513: $p_T$-integrated cross sections,

514:  \beq

515: \int d^2p_T\,\frac{d\sigma}{d\eta d^2p_T}\,

516: =\left\la\frac{dn}{d\eta}\right\ra\,

517: \sigma_{in}\ .

518: \label{85}

519:  \eeq

520:  The mean number of produced particles per unit rapidity $\la dn/d\eta\ra$

521: has an $A$-dependence which varies with rapidity. Particle production at

522: mean rapidity is related to the radiation of gluons, whose multiplicity

523: rises as $dn_G/d\eta\propto A^{1/3}$ (for the moment we neglect gluon

524: shadowing and assume the Bethe-Heitler regime for gluon radiation). Since

525: the inelastic cross section $\sigma^{pA}_{in}\propto A^{2/3}$, the

526: integrated inclusive cross section, Eq.~(\ref{85}), rises linearly with

527: $A$. This is in accordance with the AGK cancellation \cite{agk} of

528: shadowing for the inclusive cross section known as the Kancheli-Mueller

529: theorem.

530: 

531: Nuclei modify the $p_T$ distribution of radiated gluons, an effect known

532: as the color glass condensate (CGC) \cite{mv,al} or Cronin effect

533: \cite{cronin,knst}. Due to this effect, gluons are suppressed at small

534: $p_T$, enhanced at medium $p_T$, and are unchanged at large $p_T$. Gluon

535: shadowing, or the Landau-Pomeranchuk effect, is a part of the CGC and

536: reduces the total number of radiated gluons more strongly at small than at

537: large $p_T$. Thus, the observed strong suppression of small $p_T$ particle

538: production at mid rapidities is a manifestation of the CGC.

539: 

540: One, however, should be careful with the interpretation of data in terms

541: of the CGC, which is supposed to be a result of coherence between

542: different parts of the nucleus. It turns out that nuclear modifications of

543: the transverse momentum distribution occur both in the coherent and

544: incoherent regimes.  While the former can be an effect of the CGC, the

545: latter has little to do with this phenomenon. In particular, the RHIC data

546: at mid rapidities are in the transition region, i.e. particles are

547: produced coherently on the nucleus at small $p_T\lsim 1\GeV$, but

548: incoherently at larger $p_T$ \cite{knst}.

549: 

550: The suppression at small-$p_T$ observed at $\eta=3.2$ is even stronger

551: than at mid rapidities.  At this rapidity, the overall scale of the

552: suppression is related to the fact that particle production is dominated

553: by fragmentation of the projectile valence quarks. Gluons are additionally

554: suppressed due to softness of the gluon fragmentation function leading to

555: a substantially larger value of $x_1$ for gluons than for pions.  

556: Therefore, the origin of the the suppression is quite different from that

557: at mid rapidity \cite{mytalk}.  Because the number of valence quarks is

558: fixed and equal to three when integrated over rapidity (Gottfried sum

559: rule), the number of valence quarks produced with $x_F\to 1$ must be even

560: smaller, and accordingly the ratio of the $p_T$-integrated inclusive cross

561: sections should be suppressed well below unity. In this case we can use

562: either our results or the data plotted in Fig.~\ref{geist}, both of which

563: suggest a suppression factor of approximately $A^{-0.3}\approx 0.2$, in

564: good agreement with the BRAHMS data. This suppression is not affected

565: either by the CGC or gluon shadowing.

566: 

567: Note that the dominance of valence quarks in the projectile proton leads

568: to an isospin-biased ratio. Namely, negative hadrons with large $p_T$

569: close to the kinematic limit are produced mainly from $u$, rather than

570: $d$, quarks.  Therefore, more negative hadrons are produced by deuterons

571: than by protons, and this causes an enhancement of the ratio plotted in

572: Fig.~\ref{brahms} by a factor of $3/2$ \cite{mytalk}. Further on, we take

573: care of this by using proper fragmentation functions for negative hadrons.

574: 

575: The cross section of hadron production in $dA(pp)$ collisions is given by

576: a convolution of the distribution function for the projectile valence

577: quark with the quark scattering cross section and the fragmentation

578: function,

579:  \beqn

580: &&\frac{d\sigma}{d^2p_T\,d\eta} =

581: \sum\limits_q \int\limits_{z_{min}}^1 dz\,

582: f_{q/d(p)}(x_1,q_T^2)

583: \nonumber\\ &\times&

584: \left.\frac{d\sigma[qA(p)]}{d^2q_T\,d\eta}

585: \right|_{\vec q_T=\vec p_T/z}\,

586: D_{h^-/q}(z)

587: \label{87}

588:  \eeqn

589:  Here

590:  \beq

591: x_1=\frac{q_T}{\sqrt{s}}\

592: e^\eta\ .

593:  \label{88}

594:  \eeq

595: 

596:  We use the LO GRV parametrization \cite{grv} for the quark distribution

597: in the nucleon. As we explained above, the interaction with a nuclear

598: target does not obey factorization, since the effective projectile quark

599: distribution correlates with the target. Summed over multiple

600: interactions, the quark distribution in the nucleon reads,

601:  \beqn

602: &&f^{(A)}_{q/N}(x_1,q_T^2)=

603: C\,f_{q/N}(x_1,q_T^2)\,

604: \nonumber\\ &\times&

605: \frac{\int d^2b\,

606: \left[e^{-x_1\sigma_{eff}T_A(b)}-

607: e^{-\sigma_{eff}T_A(b)}\right]}

608: {(1-x_1)\int d^2b\,\left[1-

609: e^{-\sigma_{eff}T_A(b)}\right]}\ .

610:  \label{89}

611:  \eeqn

612:  Here the normalization factor $C$ is fixed by the Gottfried sum rule.

613: 

614: The cross section of quark scattering on the target in Eq.~(\ref{87}) is

615: calculated in the light-cone dipole approach \cite{zkl,jkt}, which

616: provides an easy way to incorporate multiple interactions. Obviously, the

617: $p_T$ distribution of hadrons in the final state is affected by the

618: primordial transverse motion of the projectile quarks.  In our

619: calculation, we separate the contributions characterized by different

620: initial transverse momenta and sum over three different mechanisms of

621: high-$p_T$ production.

622: 

623: \subsection{Quark-diquark break up of the proton.}

624: 

625: We employ the quark-diquark model of the proton with the $\widehat{ud}$

626: diquark small compared to the proton radius \cite{bs,review}.

627: Correspondingly, the third valence quark external to the diquark has much

628: smaller transverse momentum than the two others sitting inside the

629: diquark.  As a first mechanism, we consider proton breakup $p\to \widehat

630: {qq}+q$. We treat the diquark $\{qq\}$ as point-like and integrate over

631: its momentum. Then the $k_T$ distribution of the projectile valence quark,

632: after propagation through the nucleus at impact parameter $\vec b$, is

633: given by \cite{kst1,kst2},

634:  \beqn

635: &&\frac{d\sigma(NA\to qX)}{d^2k_T\,d^2b} =

636: \int \frac{d^2r_1 d^2r_2}{(2\pi)^2}\

637: e^{i\vec k_T(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)}

638: \nonumber\\ &\times&

639: \Psi^\dagger_N(r_1)\,\Psi_N(r_2)

640: \left[1+e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)T_A(b)}

641: \right. \nonumber\\ &-& \left.

642: e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_1)T_A(b)} -

643: e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_2)T_A(b)}

644: \right]\ .

645: \label{90}

646:  \eeqn

647:  Here the quark-diquark wave function of the nucleon is taken in a form

648: that matches the known perturbative QCD behavior at large transverse

649: momenta, $\Psi_N(r)\propto K_0(r/R_p)$, where $K_0$ is the modified Bessel

650: function, $R_p^2={4\over3}\, r_{ch}^2$, and $r_{ch}$ is the mean charge

651: radius of the proton. We assume that the quark's longitudinal momentum

652: dependence factorizes and is included in $f_{q/N}(x_1)$. The dipole cross

653: section $\sq(r)$ is taken in the saturated form \cite{kst2}, inspired by

654: the popular parametrization of Ref.~\cite{gbw}, but adjusted to the

655: description of soft data.

656: 

657:  This contribution dominates the low transverse momentum region $k_T \lsim

658: 1\GeV$.

659: 

660: \subsection{Diquark break up \boldmath$\widehat{qq}\to qq$.}

661: 

662: At larger $k_T$ the interaction resolves the diquark, so its break-up

663: should be considered. This contribution is calculated in accordance with

664: Refs.~\cite{kst1,kst2},

665:  \beqn

666: &&\frac{d\sigma(\widehat{qq}A\to qX)}{d^2k_T\,d^2b} =

667: \int \frac{d^2r_1 d^2r_2}{2\,(2\pi)^2}\

668: e^{i\vec k_T(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)}

669: \nonumber\\ &\times&

670: \Psi^\dagger_D(r_1)\,\Psi_D(r_2)

671: \left[2-e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_1)T_A(b)}

672: \right. \nonumber\\ &-&

673: e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_2)T_A(b)}-

674: e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_2/2)T_A(b)}-

675: \nonumber\\ &-&

676: e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_2/2)T_A(b)}-

677: e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_1-{1\over2}\vec r_2)}

678: \nonumber \\ &-&

679: e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_2-{1\over2}\vec r_1)}+

680: 2\,e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)T_A(b)}

681: \nonumber \\ &+& \left.

682: 2\,e^{-{1\over2}\sq(\frac{\vec r_1-\vec r_2}{2})T_A(b)}

683: \right]\ .

684: \label{100}

685:  \eeqn

686:  The diquark wave function is also assumed to have a Bessel function form,

687: with a mean quark separation of $0.2-0.3\fm$. There is much evidence that

688: such a small diquark represents the dominant quark configuration in the

689: proton \cite{review}.

690: 

691: \subsection{Hard gluon radiation \boldmath$q\to Gq$.}\label{gluons}

692: 

693: At large $k_T$, the dipole approach should recover the parton model

694: \cite{3f}, where high momentum transfer processes occur (in leading order)

695: as binary collisions with the transverse momentum of each final parton of

696: order $k_T$.  Clearly, this is different from the description in

697: Eqs.~(\ref{90})-(\ref{100}), where one assumes that the projectile valence

698: quark acquires high transverse momentum as a result of multiple

699: rescatterings, while the radiated gluons that balance this momentum are

700: summed to build up the dipole cross section. The latter is fitted to DIS

701: data involving gluons of rather low transverse momenta. Therefore, one

702: should explicitly include in the dipole description radiation of a gluon

703: with large transverse momentum that approximately balances $k_T$, i.e. the

704: process $qN\to qGX$. In the dipole approach, the cross section is given by

705: the same formula, Eq.~(\ref{90}), except that the nucleon wave function is

706: replaced by the quark-gluon light-cone wave function, $\Psi_N(r_T)

707: \Rightarrow \Psi_{qG}(r_T)$ \cite{km,kst1}, where \cite{kst2}

708:  \beq

709: \Psi_{qG}(\vec r_T)= -\frac{2i}{\pi}\,

710: \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_s}{3}}\

711: \frac{\vec r_T\cdot\vec e^{\,*}}{r_T^2}\,

712: {\rm exp}\left(-{r_T^2\over2r_0^2}\right)\ .

713: \label{110}

714:  \eeq

715:  and $r_0=0.3\fm$. Such a small mean quark-gluon separation is a result of

716: a phenomenological analysis of data for soft single diffraction $pp\to

717: pX$. The only way to explain the abnormally small triple-Pomeron coupling,

718: which is translated into very weak diffractive gluon radiation, is to

719: assume that the Weizs\"acker-Williams gluons in the proton are located

720: within small spots \cite{kp}. The spot size $r_0$ was fitted to

721: diffractive data \cite{kst2}, and the result $r_0=0.3\fm$ agrees with both

722: lattice calculations \cite{pisa} and also with the phenomenological model

723: of the instanton liquid \cite{shuryak}.

724: 

725: Notice that at small $k_T$ there is a risk of double counting in such a

726: procedure, since the radiated gluon may be counted twice, explicitly and

727: implicitly as a part of the dipole cross section. However, the first two

728: contributions, Eqs.~(\ref{90})-(\ref{100}), and the last one dominate in

729: different regions of $k_T$ and we found their overlap very small.

730: 

731: \subsection{Gluon shadowing}\label{gl-sh}

732: 

733: Although the BRAHMS data involve rather large values of $x_F$, the

734: corresponding values of $x_2$ are so small that the considerations of

735: Sects.~\ref{shadowing} and \ref{psi-sect} lead to little reduction of the

736: coherence length. Nevertheless, gluon shadowing corrections are expected

737: to be quite small even at very small $x_2$ (e.g. see predictions for LHC

738: in \cite{knst}). This is related to the presence of small size gluonic

739: spots in nucleons, discussed in the previous Sect.~\ref{gluons}. Indeed,

740: one goes to small $x_2$ in order to make the coherence length longer

741: ($\l_c\propto 1/x_2$) and thus to arrange an overlap between the parton

742: clouds which belong to different nucleons separated in the longitudinal

743: direction. However, even if this condition is fulfilled, the gluon clouds

744: hardly overlap in impact parameter, if they are shaped as small size

745: spots. Expecting the strongest gluon shadowing at $Q^2\to 0$ one can

746: estimate the shadowing correction to be,

747:  \beq

748: R_G(b)\sim 1-\exp\left[-\frac{3\pi}{4}\,r_0^2\,T_A(b)\right]\ .

749: \label{115}

750:  \eeq

751:  For heavy nuclei this estimate gives a rather weak shadowing, about

752: $10\%$, in good accord with more accurate calculations \cite{kst2,krt2} or

753: with the NLO analysis of nuclear DIS data \cite{florian}.

754: 

755: We calculate gluon shadowing corrections within the dipole approach with

756: the light-cone gluon distribution function, Eq.~(\ref{110}). The details

757: can be found in \cite{kst2,krt2}.

758: 

759: \subsection{Comparison with data}\label{data}

760: 

761: First of all, one should confront the model with the

762: $p_T$-dependent cross section of hadron production in $pp$

763: collisions. Although the nuclear effects under discussion are not

764: sensitive to this dependence, which mostly cancels in the $dA/pp$

765: ratio, this would be a stringent test of the model. Our

766: calculations are compared with $pp$ data from the BRAHMS

767: experiment at $\eta=3.2$ in Fig.~\ref{pp}.

768:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

769: \special{psfile=pp.ps  angle=0. voffset=-255. hoffset=0.

770: hscale=40. vscale=40.}

771: \vspace{7cm}

772: {\caption[Delta]

773:  {Number of negative hadrons versus $p_T$ produced in $pp$ collisions at

774: $\sqrt{s}=200\GeV$ and pseudorapidity $\eta=3.2$. Our

775: calculations, given by the solid curve, are compared with BRAHMS

776: data \cite{brahms}.}

777:  \label{pp}}

778:  \end{figure}

779:  In view of the isospin asymmetry of leading particle production mentioned

780: above, it is important to use proper fragmentation functions. The

781: standard ones extracted from data on $e^+e^-$ annihilation give a

782: sum of positive and negative hadrons, while one needs only

783: fragmentation functions for production of negative hadrons in

784: order to compare with the BRAHMS data. We use these negative

785: fragmentation functions in our calculations \cite{hermes}.

786: 

787: Now we are in a position to predict nuclear effects employing the dipole

788: formalism and the mechanism described above. The results are compared with

789: the BRAHMS data for the minimum-bias ratio\cite{brahms} in

790: Fig.~\ref{brahms}. One can see that this parameter-free calculation does

791: not leave much room for other mechanisms, including a strong CGC. On the

792: other hand, our calculations do include the CGC via explicit gluon

793: radiation and via gluon shadowing. This is, however, a rather moderate

794: effect due to smallness of the gluonic spots in nucleons

795: \cite{kst2,kp,shuryak}, as is described by the quark-gluon wave function

796: in Eq.~(\ref{110}).

797: 

798: It is interesting also to check whether the predicted dependence of the

799: ratio on impact parameter is supported by data. Our results for the ratio

800: of the cross sections of central and semicentral to peripheral collisions

801: are depicted in Fig.~\ref{centrality} in comparison with BRAHMS data

802: \cite{brahms}.

803:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

804: \special{psfile=centrality.ps  angle=0. voffset=-255. hoffset=0.

805: hscale=40. vscale=40.}

806: \vspace{7cm}

807: {\caption[Delta]

808:  {Ratio of negative particle production in central (0-20\%) and

809: semi-central (30-50\%) to peripheral (60-80\%) $d-Au$ collisions, shown by

810: closed and open points respectively. The results of the corresponding

811: calculations are depicted by solid and dashed curves.}

812:  \label{centrality}}

813:  \end{figure}

814:  The agreement is rather good.

815: 

816: Although the BRAHMS collaboration has presented their results for nuclear

817: effects as a function of rapidity, we skip this comparison, since it

818: cannot fail. Indeed, predictions \cite{knst} for the Cronin effect at

819: $\eta=0$ published in advance of data were quite successful. That region

820: is dominated by production and fragmentation of gluons. The very forward

821: region, which is under consideration now, is dominated by production and

822: fragmentation of valence quarks, and our calculations are successful here

823: as well.  For these reasons, we should not be much off the data at any

824: other (positive) rapidity, which differs only in the relative

825: contributions of valence quarks and gluons.

826: 

827: 

828: \section{Nuclear suppression of dileptons at large \boldmath$x_F$}

829: 

830: It was first observed in the E772 experiment at Fermilab \cite{e772} that

831: the DY process is suppressed at large $x_F$. Two mechanisms that may

832: possibly be responsible for this effect have been considered so far,

833: energy loss in the initial state \cite{kn1983,vasiliev,e-loss} and

834: shadowing \cite{e772,e-loss}. To make the interpretation more certain, and

835: to disentangle these two options, one can select data with the dilepton

836: effective mass sufficiently large to assure that the coherence length is

837: too short for shadowing. An example of such data for the ratio of tungsten

838: to deuterium is depicted in Fig.~\ref{dy}.

839:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

840: \special{psfile=dy.ps  angle=0. voffset=-320. hoffset=-10.

841: hscale=50. vscale=50.}

842: \vspace{4.5cm}

843: {\caption[Delta]

844:  {Ratio of DY cross sections on tungsten and deuterium as a function of

845: $x_1$, at large dilepton masses to eliminate nuclear shadowing.}

846:  \label{dy}}

847:  \end{figure}

848: 

849: \subsection{ Rest Frame Description}

850: 

851: According to the rest frame interpretation \cite{hir} (see also

852: \cite{bhq,kst1,krt3,krtj,bms}), the DY process looks like fragmentation of

853: a projectile quark into a dilepton via bremsstrahlung of a heavy photon.

854: One can either calculate this perturbatively and use the quark

855: distribution function at the corresponding scale, or employ the soft quark

856: distribution functions and use a phenomenological fragmentation function

857: $q\to q\bar ll$. The latter approach, already used in \cite{e-loss}, is

858: appropriate here, and we will apply it using the cross sections of soft

859: production of valence quarks in $pp$ and $pA$ collisions fitted in the

860: following section. To the extent that these cross sections are subject to

861: nuclear suppression at large $x_F$, the DY process should be suppressed as

862: well.

863: 

864: We perform calculations within the same formalism used in \cite{e-loss},

865: but the source of suppression is not a simple initial state energy loss,

866: but an effective one that results from the nuclear modification of the

867: Fock state decomposition discussed above. The nucleus-to-deuterium ratio

868: reads,

869:  \beq

870: R_{A/D}(x_1)=

871: \frac{2\int\limits_{x_1}^1 dx\,

872: \frac{d\sigma(pA\to qX)}{dx}\

873: D_{\bar ll/q}({x_1\over x})}

874: {A\int\limits_{x_1}^1 dx\,

875: \frac{d\sigma(pD\to qX)}{dx}\

876: D_{\bar ll/q}({x_1\over x})}\ .

877: \label{140}

878:  \eeq Here we implicitly take into account the difference in the isospin

879: composition of deuterium and tungsten. We also incorporate the

880: contribution of projectile antiquarks and target quarks using the STEQ

881: quark distribution functions \cite{steq}.

882: 

883: \subsection{Nuclear suppression of valence quarks}

884: 

885: To evaluate Eq.~(\ref{140}), one needs to know the cross sections of soft

886: valence quark production in $pp$ and $pA$ collisions. To obtain this, we

887: turn the problem around, trying to be more model independent, and get the

888: nuclear suppression of valence quark jets directly from data. For this

889: purpose, we fitted data \cite{barton} for pion production in $pp$ and $pA$

890: collisions at $100\GeV$. We describe the spectrum of produced pions as,

891:  \beqn

892: &&\frac{d\sigma(pA\to\pi X)}{dx_1}

893: \nonumber\\ &=&

894: \int\limits_{x_1}^1 dx\,

895: \frac{d\sigma(pA\to qX)}{dx}\,

896: D_{\pi/q}(x/x_1)\ .

897: \label{130}

898:  \eeqn

899:  The fragmentation function $q\to\pi$, $D_{\pi/q}(z)$, is known. We use

900: the form suggested by the Regge approach \cite{kaidalov},

901: $D_{\pi^+/u}=D_{\pi^-/d}=(1-z)^{-\alpha_R+\lambda}$ and

902: $D_{\pi^+/d}=D_{\pi^-/u}=(1-z)D_{\pi^+/u}$, where $\lambda\approx1/2$.

903: 

904: The unknown function in Eq.~(\ref{130}) is the cross section for quark jet

905: production in $pp$ or $pA$ collisions. We parametrized these cross

906: sections by a simple $x$-dependence, $\propto (1-x^\epsilon)^u/\sqrt{x}$

907: and $\propto (1-x^\epsilon)^d/\sqrt{x}$ for production of $u$ and $d$

908: quarks respectively, performed a fit to Fermilab data \cite{barton} at

909: $100\GeV$, and found $u=1.85\pm0.07$, $d=3.05\pm0.15$ for pp collisions;

910: $u=2.00\pm0.11$, $d=4.15\pm0.33$ for p-Al collisions; $u=2.03\pm0.14$,

911: $d=4.00\pm0.33$ for p-Pb collisions.  The quality of the fit can be seen

912: in Fig.~\ref{fit}.

913:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

914: \special{psfile=fit.ps  angle=0. voffset=-270. hoffset=0.

915: hscale=40. vscale=40.}

916: \vspace{8cm}

917: {\caption[Delta]

918:  {Fit to data \cite{barton} for $pp(A)\to\pi^{\pm}$ with parametrization

919: described in text. The results are shown by dashed and solid curves for

920: $pp$ and and $p-Pb$ collisions respectively.}

921:  \label{fit}}

922:  \end{figure}

923: 

924: 

925: While the parameter $u$ does not show any strong $A$-dependence, the value

926: of $d$ rises with $A$ making the $x$-dependence of the cross section

927: steeper. This is no surprise, since $d$ quarks have a steeper distribution

928: function in the proton. Unfortunately, the data are not sufficient to fix

929: well the parameter $\epsilon$, which is found to be $\epsilon=1.5\pm0.9$.

930: 

931: 

932: \subsection{Comparison with data}

933: 

934: Drell Yan results based on Eq.~(\ref{140}) are compared with the E772 data

935: in Fig.~\ref{dy}.  For $D_{\bar ll/q}(z,M^2)$ we used the phenomenological

936: fragmentation function $D_{\bar ll/q}(z,M^2)\propto (1-z)^{0.3}$ that was

937: fitted to data in Ref.~\cite{e-loss} and found to be independent of $M^2$

938: within errors, and for the quark production cross sections we used the fit

939: performed in the previous section. The parameter $\epsilon$, which is

940: poorly defined by the data, affects the $x_1$ dependence of DY cross

941: section ratio but hardly varies the amount of suppression at large $x_F$.

942: We select $\epsilon=1.3$, which is well within the errors and provides for

943: $R_{A/D}(x_1)$ a shape similar to the data.

944: 

945: Note that this description of nuclear effects appears different from the

946: energy-loss scenario employed in \cite{e-loss}. There is, however, a

947: strong overlap between the two mechanisms. The nuclear modification of the

948: projectile Fock decomposition is just a different way of calculating

949: nuclear effects due to gluon bremsstrahlung, which is the source of the

950: induced energy loss. Therefore the current approach might be called an

951: effective energy-loss description. The results, however, are different.

952: Namely, the simple mean energy loss of a single parton leads to nuclear

953: modifications that scale in $\Delta x_1$, i.e. vanish with increasing

954: energy at fixed $x_1$. In contrast, the current multi-parton effective

955: energy loss rises linearly with energy and leads to an $x_1$ scaling in

956: good accord with data.

957: 

958: Note that our interpretation of nuclear effects in the DY process is quite

959: different from the description in \cite{bckt}, where nuclear effects are

960: predicted to scale in $x_2$ and are possible only if the coherence length

961: is longer than the nuclear size. On the contrary, we expect the nuclear

962: suppression to scale in $x_F$.

963: 

964: \section{Charmonium suppression at large \boldmath$x_F$}\label{psi-sect}

965: 

966: Nuclear suppression of Charmonium production has been observed to be

967: steeply increasing at large $x_F\sim 1$ in many experiments. Understanding

968: this effect has been a challenge for a long time. Although the first data

969: \cite{na3} were well-explained and even predicted \cite{katsanevas} by an

970: energy-loss mechanism \cite{kn1983}, later data on $J/\Psi$ production at

971: higher energies demonstrated that this mechanism is not sufficient, since

972: it does not explain the observed $x_F$ scaling.

973: 

974: This problem was studied within the dipole approach in \cite{kth}. A

975: substantial part of the suppression was found to be a higher twist effect

976: related to the large size of charmonia. Such a suppression is frequently

977: identified with simple final-state absorption. However, at high energies a

978: $\bar cc$ fluctuation of a projectile gluon propagates and attenuates

979: through the entire nucleus \cite{kz1991,hk-lc,hikt2}; moreover, in the

980: case of hadroproduction, such a dipole is colored.  A description of this

981: process in terms of the light-cone dipole approach was developed in

982: \cite{kth}, and the cross section was calculated in a parameter-free way.

983: 

984: The rest of the suppression observed experimentally was prescribed to be

985: the effect of energy loss and gluon shadowing. Within this interpretation

986: of data, the observed $x_1$ scaling looked like an accidental compensation

987: of energy-loss corrections decreasing with energy and gluon shadowing

988: effects rising with energy. Correspondingly, an approximate $x_2$ scaling

989: (broken at low energies by energy loss) was predicted in \cite{kth} for

990: energies ranging between Fermilab (fixed targets) and RHIC. However, the

991: recent data from the PHENIX experiment at RHIC found a dramatic violation

992: of $x_2$ scaling in strict contradiction with this prediction. In fact,

993: any parton model based on QCD factorization predicts $x_2$ scaling and

994: contradicts this data.

995: 

996: We think that the higher twist nuclear shadowing was correctly calculated

997: in \cite{kth}, but that the gluon shadowing was miscalculated and led to

998: the incorrect predictions for RHIC \cite{kth,hkp}. What was missed in

999: \cite{kth} is the shrinkage of the coherence length towards the kinematic

1000: limit.  This effect, found for the DY reaction in \cite{e-loss} and

1001: discussed above in Sect.~\ref{shadowing}, is even more important for gluon

1002: shadowing. Due to proximity of the kinematic limit for $J/\Psi$ production

1003: with $x_F\to 1$, the effective value of $x_2$ is substantially increased,

1004:  \beq

1005: \tilde x_2 \sim \frac{x_2}{1-x_1}\ .

1006: \label{150}

1007:  \eeq

1008:  Additionally, the coherence length available for gluon shadowing gets

1009: another small factor $P^G$,

1010:  \beq

1011: l_c^G=\frac{P^G}{m_N\,\tilde x_2}

1012: = \frac{s\,P^G}{M_{\Psi}^2\,m_N}\

1013: x_1(1-x_1)\ .

1014: \label{160}

1015:  \eeq This factor was evaluated in \cite{krt2} as $P^G\approx 0.1$. Thus,

1016: we conclude that for the kinematics of the E772/E866 experiments the

1017: coherence length for gluon shadowing does not exceed $l_c^G\lsim 0.8\fm$,

1018: i.e. no gluon shadowing is possible. Therefore, one should search for an

1019: alternative explanation of the data.

1020: 

1021: Obviously, the same Sudakov effect that causes the large $x_F$ suppression

1022: of other particles, in particular light hadrons and lepton pairs, affects

1023: the charmonium production as well. We can use the same results for nuclear

1024: softening of the produced valence quark, fitted to data, as for the DY

1025: reaction. Nevertheless, the phenomenological fragmentation function

1026: $q\to\Psi q$ should be different. Fitting data for $J/\Psi$ production in

1027: $pp$ collisions we found $D_{\Psi/q}(z)\propto (1-z)^{1.6}$. Then, using

1028: the same convolution of the distribution function of the produced quark

1029: and the fragmentation function as in (\ref{140}), we arrive at the

1030: suppression depicted by the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{psi}.

1031:  \begin{figure}[tbh]

1032: \special{psfile=psi.ps  angle=0. voffset=-230. hoffset=20.

1033: hscale=35. vscale=35.}

1034: \vspace{7cm}

1035: {\caption[Delta]

1036:  {Tungsten-to-beryllium cross section ratio for charmonium production as

1037: function of $x_1$. Data are from the E866 experiment \cite{e866-psi}. The

1038: dashed curve shows the contribution of the extra Sudakov suppression

1039: extracted from data for soft hadron production. The solid curve also

1040: includes the higher twist shadowing related to the nonzero $\bar cc$

1041: separation.}

1042:  \label{psi}}

1043:  \end{figure}

1044: 

1045:  After the higher twist shadowing calculated in \cite{kth} is added, the

1046: result is closer to the data, as shown by the solid curve in

1047: Fig.~\ref{psi}. We see that the scale of the nuclear suppression at large

1048: $x_F$ agrees with the data, although the shape of the $x_F$ dependence

1049: needs to be improved. This problem is a consequence of the oversimplified

1050: parametrization for the distribution function of the produced quark.

1051: Unfortunately, the errors of the available data for light hadron

1052: production are too large and do not allow use of more sophisticated

1053: parametrizations.

1054: 

1055: Since the Sudakov suppression scales in $x_1$, one should expect an

1056: approximate $x_F$ scaling, which is indeed observed in data. Therefore a

1057: similar $x_F$ dependence is expected at RHIC and LHC, but the onset of

1058: $x_2$ scaling, which has been naively expected at high energies

1059: \cite{kth}, will never occur. Preliminary data from RHIC \cite{psi-qm}

1060: confirm this. Additionally, they do not show any appreciable effect of

1061: gluon shadowing, in spite of smallness of $x_2$. This agrees with the

1062: finding of \cite{kst2}, that the leading twist gluon shadowing is very

1063: weak. There is the possibility of a strong higher twist effect that may

1064: make gluon shadowing in the charmonium channel stronger than in DIS

1065: \cite{kth}. Such a prediction is based, however, on an ad hoc

1066: phenomenological potential model and may be incorrect.

1067: 

1068: Open charm production is expected to have a similar Sudakov nuclear

1069: suppression, like that shown by the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{psi}. The

1070: higher twist shadowing related to the nonzero $\bar cc$ separation does

1071: exist \cite{kt-charm}, but is much weaker \cite{kt-charm}. The leading

1072: twist gluon shadowing is also rather weak even at the RHIC energies. As

1073: for higher twist corrections, in the potential model \cite{kt-charm} they

1074: may be large, but as we mentioned, this is not a solid theoretical

1075: prediction.

1076: 

1077: Note that our description of nuclear suppression of heavy quarkonia is

1078: quite different from the model proposed in \cite{bckt}. That model

1079: involves three unknown parameters fitted to the nuclear data to be

1080: explained. The key parameter is the absorption cross section for a dipole

1081: consisting of a colored heavy quark pair $\bar QQ$ and light quarks.

1082: However, the pair of heavy quarks that eventually forms the detected

1083: quarkonium, and the comoving light quarks, cannot "talk to each other" due

1084: to Lorentz time dilation during propagation through the nucleus. In other

1085: words, it does not make any difference whether the accompanying light

1086: quarks are primordial or are created during hadronization of the

1087: color-octet $\bar QQ$ pair. Therefore, the multiple interactions of such a

1088: large dipole should not be treated as absorption for production of a

1089: colorless $\bar QQ$ pair via color neutralization. In contrast, in our

1090: approach the strong suppression of heavy quarks is related to the steep

1091: $z$-dependence of the fragmentation function $D_{\Psi/q}(z)$. This

1092: function is fitted to data on $pp$ collisions, while no fitting is done to

1093: nuclear data.

1094: 

1095: 

1096: \section{Conclusions and outlook}

1097: 

1098: Nuclei suppress the large $x_F$ production of different species of

1099: particles: light hadrons of both small and large $p_T$, dileptons, hidden

1100: and open heavy flavor, photons, etc. So far, no exception is known. The

1101: source of the effect can be understood either as an extra Sudakov

1102: suppression caused by multiple interactions in nuclei, or as a

1103: nucleus-induced reduction of the survival probability of large rapidity

1104: gap processes. Although this effect can be also represented as an

1105: effective energy loss, the former scales in $x_F$. This is different from

1106: a simple single-parton energy loss, which is energy independent and leads

1107: to an energy shift $\Delta x_1=\Delta E/E$ that vanishes with energy.

1108: 

1109: In addition to this key observation, the new results of this paper can be

1110: presented as follows.

1111: 

1112: \begin{itemize}

1113: 

1114: \item The simple formula (\ref{120}) based on Glauber-Gribov multiple

1115: interaction theory and the AGK cutting rules explains the universal $x_F$

1116: scaling observed in data for inclusive production of leading light hadrons

1117: with small $p_T$ quite well.

1118: 

1119:  \item With the same input we calculated high-$p_T$ hadron production at

1120: large $x_F$ and found a substantial suppression. This parameter-free

1121: calculation agrees with recent measurements performed by the BRAHMS

1122: collaboration at forward rapidities in deuteron-gold collisions at RHIC.

1123: Our simple explanation is based on just energy conservation; therefore, it

1124: could be implemented independently of the dynamics. On the other hand, it

1125: does not leave much room for other mechanisms under debate, such as the

1126: CGC. We expect a similar suppression at large $p_T$ and large $x_F$ at

1127: lower energies, where no effect of coherence is possible.

1128: 

1129: \item The Drell-Yan process, treated like heavy photon bremsstrahlung in

1130: the target rest frame, is also subject to a nuclear suppression at large

1131: $x_F$ imposed by energy conservation restrictions. In this case, we made a

1132: model-dependent calculation and relied on a fit to data for soft

1133: production of light hadrons. Within experimental uncertainties of the

1134: available data, we described rather well the data for DY reaction at large

1135: masses where an alternative explanation, nuclear shadowing, is excluded.

1136: 

1137: \item Charmonium production is different from DY only by a steeper

1138: fragmentation function $q\to \Psi q$, which we fitted to $pp$ data, and by

1139: an additional contribution of higher twist shadowing related to the large

1140: size of the charmonium. We correctly reproduced the magnitude of nuclear

1141: suppression at large $x_F$, but the shape of the $x_F$ dependence needs to

1142: be improved. This problem seems to be a result of our model-independent,

1143: but oversimplified, fit to soft hadronic data. We leave this improvement

1144: for future work, both for charmonium production and the DY process.

1145: 

1146: \end{itemize}

1147: 

1148: \vspace*{0cm}

1149: 

1150: \begin{acknowledgments}

1151: 

1152: We are grateful to Stan Brodsky, Gerry Garvey, J\"org H\"ufner, Alexey

1153: Kaidalov, Yuri Kovchegov, Mike Leitch, Genya Levin, Pat McGaughey,

1154: Hans-J\"urgen Pirner, and J\"org Raufeisen for useful discussions and to

1155: Berndt M\"uller for pointing to typos. The work of J.N. has been supported

1156: by the Slovak Funding Agency, Grant No. 2/4063/24. Work was supported in

1157: part by Fondecyt (Chile) grants 1030355, 1050519 and 1050589.

1158: 

1159: \end{acknowledgments}

1160: 

1161: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1162: 

1163: \bibitem{brahms} BRAHMS Collaboration, I.~Arsene et al.,

1164: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 242303 (2004).

1165: 

1166: \bibitem{e-loss} M.B.~Johnson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4483

1167: (2001); Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65}, 025203 (2002).

1168: 

1169: \bibitem{maor} E.~Gotsman, E.M.~Levin and U.~Maor, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 60},

1170: 094011 (1999).

1171: 

1172: \bibitem{bb} R.~Blankenbecler and S.J.~Brodsky, Phys.Rev. D {\bf 10}, 2973

1173: (1974).

1174: 

1175: \bibitem{bf} S.J.~Brodsky and G.R.~Farrar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 31}, 1153

1176: (1973).

1177: 

1178: \bibitem{bs} I.A.~Schmidt and R.~Blankenbecler, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 15},

1179: 3321 (1977).

1180: 

1181: \bibitem{n} F. Niedermayer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 34}, 3494 (1986).

1182: 

1183: \bibitem{bh} S.J.~Brodsky and P.~Hoyer, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 298}, 165 (1993).

1184: 

1185: \bibitem{bdms} R.~Baier, Yu.L.~Dokshitzer, A.H.~Mueller, S. Peigne and

1186: D.~Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 483}, 297 (1997); B {\bf 484}, 265 (1997).

1187: 

1188: \bibitem{knp} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Nemchik and E.~Predazzi, Proceedings

1189: of the workshop on Future Physics at HERA, ed. by G.~Ingelman,

1190: A.~De~Roeck and R.~Klanner, DESY 1995/1996, v. 2, 1038 (nucl-th/9607036);

1191: Proceedings of the ELFE Summer School on Confinement physics, ed. by

1192: S.D.~Bass and P.A.M.~Guichon, Cambridge 1995, Editions Frontieres, p. 391

1193: (hep-ph/9511214).

1194: 

1195: \bibitem{knph} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Nemchik, E.~Predazzi, and

1196: A.~Hayashigaki, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 740}, 211 (2004).

1197: 

1198: \bibitem{hoyer}  P.~Hoyer, M.~Vanttinen, and U.~Sukhatme,

1199: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 246}, 217 (1990).

1200: 

1201: \bibitem{factorization} J.~C.~Collins, D.E.~Soper, and G.~Sterman,

1202: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 261}, 104 (1985); hep-ph/0409313.

1203: 

1204: \bibitem{hir} B.Z. Kopeliovich {\sl Soft Component of Hard Reactions and

1205: Nuclear Shadowing (DIS, Drell-Yan reaction, heavy quark production)}, in

1206: proc. of the Workshop 'Dynamical Properties of Hadrons in Nuclear

1207: Matter', Hirschegg 1995, ed. H. Feldmeier and W. Noerenberg, p. 102

1208: (hep-ph/9609385).

1209: 

1210: \bibitem{glr} L.V.~Gribov, E.M.~Levin and M.G.~Ryskin, Nucl. Phys.

1211: B {\bf 188}, 555 (1981); Phys. Rep. {\bf 100},1 (1983).

1212: 

1213: \bibitem{al} A.H.~Mueller, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 1}, 19 (1998).

1214: 

1215: \bibitem{mv} L.~McLerran and R.~Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}, 2233

1216: (1994); D {\bf 49}, 3352 (1994).

1217: 

1218: \bibitem{kkt} D.~Kharzeev, Y.V.~Kovchegov and K.~Tuchin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf

1219: 599}, 23 (2004).

1220: 

1221: \bibitem{agk} A.V.~Abramovsky, V.N.~Gribov and O.V.~Kancheli, Yad. Fiz.

1222: {\bf 18}, 595 (1973).

1223: 

1224: \bibitem{barton} D.S.~Barton et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27}, 2580 (1983).

1225: 

1226: \bibitem{geist} W.M.~Geist, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 525}, 149c (1991).

1227: 

1228: \bibitem{data}

1229: D.S.~Barton et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27}, 2580 (1983);

1230: A.~Beretvas et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 34}, 53 (1986);

1231: M.~Binkley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 37}, 571 (1976);

1232: R.~Bailey et al., Z. Phys. C {\bf 22}, 125 (1984);

1233: P.~Skubic et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 18}, 3115 (1978).

1234: 

1235: \bibitem{e866-psi} The E866 Collaboration, M.J.~Leitch et al., Phys. Rev.

1236: Lett. {\bf 84}, 3256 (2000).

1237: 

1238: \bibitem{na3} The NA3 Collaboration, J.~Badier et al., Z. Phys. C {\bf 20},

1239: 101 (1983).

1240: 

1241: \bibitem{psi-qm} PHENIX Collaboration, R.G.~de~Cassagnac, talk at Quark

1242: Matter, Berkeley, 2004.

1243: 

1244: \bibitem{gb} J.F.~Gunion and G.~Bertsch, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 25}, 746 (1982).

1245: 

1246: \bibitem{gribov} V.N.~Gribov, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 10}, 71 (1999).

1247: 

1248: \bibitem{k3p} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, I.K.~Potashnikova, B.~Povh, and E.~Predazzi,

1249: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 507 (2000); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 054001 (2001).

1250: 

1251: \bibitem{kaidalov} A.B.~Kaidalov, JETP Lett. {\bf 32}, 474 (1980); Sov. J.

1252: Nucl. Phys. {\bf 33}, 733 (1981); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 116}, 459 (1982).

1253: 

1254: \bibitem{capella} A.~Capella et al., Phys. Rep. {\bf 236}, 225 (1994).

1255: 

1256: \bibitem{mine} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 68}, 044906 (2003).

1257: 

1258: \bibitem{helios} T. Akesson et al., Z. Phys. C {\bf 49}, 355 (1991).

1259: 

1260: \bibitem{kps} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, I.K.~Potashnikova and I.A.~Schmidt,

1261: {\sl Large rapidity gap events in proton-nucleus collisions}, paper in

1262: preparation.

1263: 

1264: \bibitem{bckt} K.~Boreskov, A.~Capella, A.~Kaidalov and J.~Tran~Thanh~Van,

1265: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 919 (1993).

1266: 

1267: \bibitem{cronin} D.~Antreasyan et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19}, 764 (1979).

1268: 

1269: \bibitem{knst} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Nemchik, A.~Sch\"afer and

1270: A.V.~Tarasov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 232303 (2002).

1271: 

1272: \bibitem{mytalk} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, talk at the Workshp on High-$p_T$

1273: Physics at RHIC, December 2-6, 2003.

1274: 

1275: \bibitem{grv} M.~Gluck, E.~Reya and A.~Vogt, Z. Phys. C {\bf 67}, 433

1276: (1995).

1277: 

1278: \bibitem{zkl} A.B.~Zamolodchikov, B.Z.~Kopeliovich and L.I.~Lapidus, Sov.

1279: Phys. JETP Lett. {\bf 33}, 595 (1981); Pisma v Zh. Exper. Teor.  Fiz. {\bf

1280: 33}, 612 (1981).

1281: 

1282: \bibitem{jkt} M.B.~Johnson, B.Z.~Kopeliovich and A.V.~Tarasov, Phys. Rev.

1283: C {\bf 63}, 035203 (2001).

1284: 

1285: \bibitem{review} M.~Anselmino et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 65}, 1199 (1993).

1286: 

1287: \bibitem{kst1} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, A.~Sch\"afer and A.V.~Tarasov,

1288: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 59}, 1609 (1999).

1289: 

1290: \bibitem{kst2} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, A.~Sch\"afer and A.V.~Tarasov, Phys.

1291: Rev. D {\bf 62}, 054022 (2000).

1292: 

1293: \bibitem{gbw} K.~Golec-Biernat and M.~W\"usthoff, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}

1294: 014017 (1999).

1295: 

1296: \bibitem{3f} R.P.~Feynman, R.D.~Field, and G.C.~Fox, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 18},

1297: 3320 (1978).

1298: 

1299: \bibitem{km} Yu.V.~Kovchegov and A.H.~Mueller, Nucl.  Phys. B {\bf 529}, 451

1300: (1998).

1301: 

1302: \bibitem{florian} D.~de~Florian and R.~Sassot, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69},

1303: 074028 (2004).

1304: 

1305: \bibitem{hermes} S.~Kretzer, E.~Leader and E.~Christova, Eur. Phys. J. C

1306: {\bf 22}, 269 (2001).

1307: 

1308: \bibitem{kp}  B.Z.~Kopeliovich, B.~Povh, J. Phys. G {\bf 30}, S999 (2004).

1309: 

1310: \bibitem{pisa} M.~D'Elia, A.~Di~Giacomo and E.~Meggiolaro,

1311: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 408}, 315 (1997).

1312: 

1313: \bibitem{shuryak} E.V.~Shuryak, I.~Zahed, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 014011

1314: (2004).

1315: 

1316: \bibitem{e772} D.M.~Alde et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 2479 (1990).

1317: 

1318: \bibitem{kn1983} B.Z. Kopeliovich and F. Niedermayer, {\sl

1319: Nuclear screening in $J/\Psi$ and Drell-Yan pair production},

1320: JINR-E2-84-834, Dubna 1984 (scanned in KEK library).

1321: 

1322: \bibitem{vasiliev} M. Vasiliev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 2304

1323: (1999).

1324: 

1325: \bibitem{bhq}  S.J.~Brodsky, A.~Hebecker and  E.~Quack,

1326:  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 2584 (1997).

1327: 

1328: \bibitem{krt3} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Raufeisen and A.V.~Tarasov, Phys. Lett.

1329: B {\bf 503}, 91 (2001).

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{krtj} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Raufeisen, A.V.~Tarasov, and

1332: M.B.~Johnson, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 67}, 014903 (2003).

1333: 

1334: \bibitem{bms} R.~Baier, A.H.~Mueller, D.~Schiff, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 741}

1335: 358 (2004).

1336: 

1337: \bibitem{steq}  J. Pumplin et al., JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002).

1338: 

1339: \bibitem{katsanevas} E537 Collaboration, S.~Katsanevas et al., Phys. Rev.

1340: Lett. {\bf 60}, 2121 (1988).

1341: 

1342: \bibitem{kth} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, A.V.~Tarasov, and J.~H\"ufner, Nucl. Phys.

1343: A {\bf 696}, 669 (2001).

1344: 

1345: \bibitem{kz1991} B.Z.~Kopeliovich and B.G.~Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44},

1346: 3466 (1991).

1347: 

1348: \bibitem{hk-lc} J.~H\"ufner, and B.Z.~Kopeliovich, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 403},

1349: 128 (1997).

1350: 

1351: \bibitem{hikt2} J.~H\"ufner, Yu.P.~Ivanov, B.Z.~Kopeliovich and

1352: A.V.~Tarasov, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 66}, 024903 (2002).

1353: 

1354: \bibitem{hkp} J.~H\"ufner, B.Z.~Kopeliovich and A.~Polleri, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1355: {\bf 87}, 112302 (2001).

1356: 

1357: \bibitem{krt2} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Raufeisen and A.V.~Tarasov, Phys. Rev.

1358: C {\bf 62}, 035204 (2000).

1359: 

1360: \bibitem{kt-charm} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, A.V.~Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf

1361: 710}, 180 (2002).

1362: 

1363: \end{thebibliography}

1364: 

1365: \end{document}

1366: