1: \documentclass [12pt] {article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \textwidth 450pt
4: \oddsidemargin 7mm
5: \evensidemargin 5mm
6: \headsep 9pt
7: \topmargin 0pt
8: \textheight 600pt
9: \baselineskip 24pt
10: \parindent 15pt
11: \pagestyle{empty}
12: \begin {document}
13:
14: \title{$J/\Psi$ and Drell-Yan pair production on nuclear targets}
15:
16: \author{Ya. A. Berdnikov$^1$ \and
17: M. M. Ryzhinskiy$^1$\thanks{E-mail: mryzhinskiy@phmf.spbstu.ru} \and
18: Yu. M. Shabelski$^2$\thanks{E-mail: shabelsk@thd.pnpi.spb.ru}}
19: \date{$^1$St.-Petersburg State Polytechnic University, St.-Petersburg, Russia \\
20: $^2$Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, St.-Petersburg, Russia}
21:
22: \maketitle
23:
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We estimate the energy losses in the cases of $J/\Psi$ and $l^+l^-$ pair
27: production on nuclear targets in terms of effective change of the initial
28: beam energy. Our phenomenological results are in reasonable agreement with
29: Theoretical calculations.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \graphicspath{{./eps/}{./}}
33:
34: \newpage
35: \pagestyle{plain}
36: \section{Introduction}
37: \vskip 0.5 truecm
38:
39: There exist significant nuclear effects in the cases of $J/\Psi$, and even of
40: Drell-Yan pair production. These effects are discussed in many papers
41: (see below). We present the possibility to estimate them directly from
42: the experimental data.
43:
44: Let us consider the variable
45: \begin{equation}
46: \label{eq:x0}
47: x_0=\frac{p}{p_0},
48: \end{equation}
49: where $p$ is the momentum
50: of produced secondary and $p_0$ is the initial momentum of the beam particle
51: both in c.m. frame.
52: At high energies in the case of nucleon target the maximum value of
53: $x_0$ is close to unity ($(x_0)_{\rm max}\to1$). In the case of nuclear target
54: the situation is more complicated
55: because there are many different contributions. First of all there exists
56: the so called cumulative production (with $x_0>1$)
57: \cite{Baldin1,Bayukov1,Frankfurt1}. However it is
58: a special process which we are not going to consider in this paper.
59:
60: Many other processes result in $(x_0)_{\rm max}<1$ due to
61: the initial- and/or final-state interactions \cite{Vogt1}.
62: For example in the case of Drell-Yan production there exist initial-state
63: effect such as energy loss of the incident quark in nuclear target as well as
64: nuclear shadowing \cite{Vasiliev1,Kop1}. In the case of $J/\Psi$ production there
65: is an additional source of suppression connected with final-state interactions
66: \cite{Kop2}.
67:
68: Moreover, in all processes on nuclear targets (except of coherent ones)
69: some fraction of energy is used for nuclear disintegration.
70: The nuclear target is destroyed and several nucleons, as well as light
71: nuclear fragments, (say, $\alpha$-particles) appear in the final state.
72: It can be considered as a phase space limitation. This fraction
73: is numerically not so small (it is many times more than the nuclear
74: binding energy) \cite{Azimov1,Azimov2}. This source of energy loss also
75: leads to decrease of $(x_0)_{\rm max}$ but it was not taken into account
76: in all modern papers.
77:
78: In the present paper we will not consider every source of suppression
79: separately, but we are going to consider them all together including
80: the last one.
81:
82: It is clear that all initial-state energy losses are equivalent to
83: decrease of the incident beam momentum $p_0$. As the phase space effects
84: as well as final state interactions decrease $(x_0)_{max}$, we assume
85: that their influence in the considered processes can be effectively
86: described by the same way, as the additional decrease of $p_0$. So we
87: change $p_0$ by $p_0 - p_A$, where $p_A$ is a phenomenological parameter
88: which accounts for all energy losses.
89:
90: In what follows we will consider the $A$-dependences of $J/\Psi$ and
91: Drell-Yan pair production in terms of $x_{\rm F}$:
92:
93: \begin{equation}
94: \label{eq:xF}
95: x_{\rm F} = \frac{p}{p_0 - p_A}
96: \end{equation}
97: and we assume that it is possible to find the shift $p_A$ from the
98: condition that the ratio of multiplicities on nucleon and nuclear
99: targets
100: \begin{equation}
101: R_{hA/hp}(x_F) = const (x_F) \simeq 1 ,
102: \end{equation}
103: whereas the same multiplicity ratio in terms of $x_0$ has evident
104: $A$-dependence
105: \begin{equation}
106: R_{hA/hp}(x_0) = f(x_0).
107: \end{equation}
108:
109: Evidently, such rescale is reasonable only for not very small $x_0$
110: values.
111:
112: We will determine the shift $p_A$ from the
113: experimental data and we will compare them with several independent
114: estimations.
115: Such approach allows us, in particular, to investigate the energy dependence
116: of all nuclear effects.
117: In conclusion we will compare our results with theoretical
118: calculations \cite{Kop1,Kop2}.
119:
120: \section{$A$-dependence of $J/\Psi$ production at large $x_{\rm F}$}
121: Charmonium production off nuclei has drawn much attention during the last
122: two decades, since the NA3 experiment at CERN \cite{Badier1} has found a
123: steep increase of nuclear suppression with rising $x_0$.
124: This effect was confirmed later in the same energy range \cite{Katsanevas1}
125: as well as at high energies \cite{Leitch1,Alde1,Kowitt1}.
126:
127: For the purpose of our analysis we used the experimental data on $J/\Psi$ production
128: in proton-nucleus ($pA$) collisions published in \cite{Leitch1,Kowitt1,Gribushin1}.
129: We also used data on $J/\Psi$ production in $\pi^{-}A$ collisions
130: \cite{Katsanevas1, Abolins1}. We analysed the ratio $R_{A_1/A_2}$ of
131: inclusive differential cross sections for $J/\Psi$ hadroproduction on $A_1$ nucleus
132: to that on $A_2$:
133:
134: \begin{equation}
135: \label{eq:ratio}
136: R_{A_1/A_2} = \frac{\frac{1}{A_1}\left(\frac{{\rm d}\sigma}{{\rm d}x_0}\right)_{hA_1\rightarrow J/\Psi}}
137: {\frac{1}{A_2}\left(\frac{{\rm d}\sigma}{{\rm d}x_0}\right)_{hA_2\rightarrow J/\Psi}}.
138: \end{equation}
139:
140: The analysis was perfomed in the following way. Suppose one has two
141: $x_0$-spectra for $J/\Psi$ production on nucleon and nuclear targets
142: or on two different nuclei (light and
143: heavy ones). Then one can shift the spectrum that corresponds to the heavy
144: nucleus according to Eq. (\ref{eq:xF}) by changing $p_A$ parameter.
145: Assuming that nuclear effects are small
146: for very light nuclei, it is possible then to calculate the fraction of beam energy/momentum
147: spent on nuclear effects. This may be done by
148: calculating the ratio of the shifted spectrum to the spectrum that corresponds to the
149: light nucleus. When this ratio is close to unity then the corresponding shift
150: will give the absolute value of energy/momentum loss caused by the mentioned
151: nuclear effects.
152:
153: Let us analyse the spectra \cite{Kowitt1} presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:E789initial}.
154: The spectra represent
155: the differential cross sections for $J/\Psi$'s produced inclusively in 800~GeV/{\it c}
156: $p$Cu and $p$Be collisions measured by E789 Collaboration. One can see the
157: evident nuclear suppression for copper target.
158:
159: Now to calculate how much energy/momentum of the beam particle is spent on nuclear
160: effects we should shift the spectrum for the heavy nucleus (namely copper). The shifted spectrum
161: is presented on Fig.~\ref{fig:E789shifted}. The solid curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:E789shifted}
162: represents the fit to the shifted spectrum
163: needed for further calculations of the ratio of the presented spectra.
164:
165: The calculated ratios Eq.~(\ref{eq:ratio}) one can see in Fig.~\ref{fig:E789ratios}.
166: Solid circles correspond to the
167: original ratio measured by E789 Collaboration, two other ratios were calculated for different
168: shifts: $p_A=0.5$~GeV/{\it c} (solid squares) and $p_A=0.7$~GeV/{\it c} (open squares). These
169: $p_A$ values represent the amount of absolute momentum spent on nuclear effects.
170:
171: The values of $p_A$ in c.m. frame correspond to the shift
172:
173: \begin{equation}
174: \label{eq:shift_cm}
175: \Delta x^{\rm c.m.}_{\rm F} = \frac{p_A}{p_0}.
176: \end{equation}
177: For large $x_{\rm F}$ $\Delta x^{\rm lab.}_{\rm F}\approx\Delta x^{\rm c.m.}_{\rm F}$,
178: so we can calculate the
179: absolute value of energy losses in lab. frame. In our case the shift
180: $p_A = 0.5$~GeV/{\it c} corresponds in the lab. frame to the energy losses
181: $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm Cu/Be}\approx 20$~GeV/{\it c}.
182:
183: Unfortunately E789 is the only experiment that measured absolute cross sections for $J/\Psi$
184: production in $pA$ collisions for both light and heavy nuclei.
185: Experimentally it is much easier to measure ratios of
186: the cross sections at once, thus most collaborations present only the ratios
187: (without absolute values of the cross sections) as their results. Consequently
188: it is difficult to analyse those experiments in such a way we did above.
189:
190: However the most recent and most precise experiment on $J/\Psi$ production by E866
191: Collaboration \cite{Leitch1} was performed at the same energy
192: (800 GeV) as E789 and used Be and W targets. Thus using the
193: E789 $x_0$-spectrum for beryllium target and E866 ratio of spectrum on beryllium to
194: that on tungsten one can extract the absolute $J/\Psi$ production
195: cross section for tungsten. Since the $x_0$-scale covered by E866 experiment
196: ($-0.1<x_0<0.93$) is larger than one covered by E789 ($0.3<x_0<0.95$), then
197: to extract E866 spectrum for W target we
198: combined the E789 data with the data obtained by
199: E672 and E706 Collaborations for Be target in the range of
200: $0.0 < x_0 < 0.5$ \cite{Gribushin1}.
201: Fig.~\ref{fig:E866initial} represents the ratio measured by E866
202: (Fig.~\ref{fig:E866initial}a) and the absolute spectra for Be target
203: (solid squares)
204: combined from the mentioned data sets, and for W target
205: (open squares) extracted
206: from the ratio (Fig.~\ref{fig:E866initial}b).
207: Now it is possible to analyse the last two spectra in the same way as was
208: done in the case of E789 data (see Fig.~\ref{fig:E789shifted}).
209: We omit intermediate calculations and present the final result.
210: The shifted ratios at
211: two different shift values ($p_A=1.2$~GeV/{\it c} --- solid squares,
212: and $p_A=1.5$~GeV/{\it c} --- open squares) are presented in
213: Fig.~\ref{fig:E866ratios}. This corresponds to the absolute energy losses
214: in the lab. frame $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm W/Be}\approx 50$~GeV/{\it c}.
215:
216: One can see that the absolute value
217: of energy/momentum loss in tungsten is more than two times larger than one
218: in copper target, which is rather clear. Indeed, W target is $\approx2.9$
219: times heavier than Cu. Consequently, nuclear effects in the former
220: should be stronger, thus the value of energy/momentum lost by the projectile
221: in W target should be larger than that in Cu.
222:
223: Besides proton induced reactions we considered the data on $J/\Psi$ production
224: in $\pi^{-}A$ collisions. The data available are the ratio of differential cross sections
225: for $J/\Psi$ production on W to that on Be target at 125~GeV/{\it c}
226: \cite{Katsanevas1} (Fig.~\ref{fig:Pi_initial}a),
227: and absolute differential cross section for $J/\Psi$ production
228: on Be target at 150~GeV/{\it c} \cite{Abolins1}.
229: Since the energies for the
230: two data sets slightly differ from each other, we build the
231: corresponding invariant cross section
232: from that in Ref.~\cite{Abolins1}, which is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pi_initial}b.
233: To extract the spectrum for a heavy nucleus (namely, tungsten) we applied the procedure
234: described above. Omitting intermediate results we present the range of $p_A$
235: values obtained from the analysis (Fig.~\ref{fig:Pi_ratios}):
236:
237: \begin{equation}
238: p_A = 1.5 - 1.7 {\rm ~GeV}/c,
239: \nonumber
240: \end{equation}
241: which correspond to $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm W/Be} \approx 12$~GeV/c.
242: The obtained $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm W/Be}$ value for $\pi^-A$ collisions at
243: 125~GeV/{\it c} is about 4 times smaller than that obtained for $pA$ collisions
244: at 800~GeV/{\it c}. Some part of this difference (say, factor $\sim1.5$) can be
245: connected with smaller
246: pion-nucleon ($\pi N$) cross section in comparison with $NN$ cross section.
247: Another part of the difference can be connected with the dependence of nuclear
248: effects on the initial energy.
249:
250: Unfortunately the errors of the data combined with the analysis errors result
251: in too large error of the final result, which
252: does not allow us do draw a definite conclusion.
253:
254:
255: \section{$A$-dependence of Drell-Yan production at large $x_{\rm F}$}
256: Since the Drell-Yan mechanism produces lepton pairs which only interact electromagnetically,
257: the $A$-dependence is expected to be weak because no final-state interactions
258: affect the lepton pair. However some initial-state interactions may affect the A dependence.
259:
260: Almost all the experimental results on Drell-Yan production are presented in terms of
261: the ratio of inclusive differential cross sections on a heavy nucleus to that on
262: a light one. And there is no opportunity to extract desired spectra separately as was done
263: in the previous section.
264:
265: However we developed a Monte-Carlo (MC) event generator (HARDPING ---
266: Hard Probe Interaction Generator) that extends well known HIJING MC
267: \cite{Hijing} on Drell-Yan pair production process and some initial-state
268: effects are accounted for
269: \cite{Berdnikov1,Berdnikov2}. HARDPING MC describes well
270: the data on Drell-Yan pair production in hadron-nucleus ($hA$) collisions
271: at high-energies \cite{Berdnikov1,Berdnikov2}.
272:
273: Using HARDPING MC we simulated absolute spectra for Drell-Yan pair
274: production in $pA$ collisions on W and Be targets
275: at 800~GeV/{\it c}. Then we applied the procedure described above
276: for the two simulated spectra. The results of the analysis are presented
277: in Fig.~\ref{fig:DrellYan}. The figure represents the original
278: E866 data \cite{Vasiliev1} (solid circles), simulated ratio
279: without any shift (open circles) to demonstrate consistency
280: between the simulated results and the experimental data,
281: and shifted ratios obtained with HARDPING MC. As was predicted
282: the fraction of energy/momentum lost by the projectile on
283: nuclear effects is small for the case of Drell-Yan pair
284: production. This is because there is no final-state interactions
285: in Drell-Yan production process.
286:
287: The obtained value for $p_A \approx 0.3$~GeV/{\it c} corresponds
288: to $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm W/Be} \approx 12$~GeV/c.
289:
290: \section{Conclusion}
291: In summary, we considered the energy/momentum losses of the projectile in $hA$ collisions
292: at high-energies from the available experimental data. What we were interested in
293: is how much energy/momentum of the projectile is spent on all the nuclear effects
294: including the effect of nuclear disintegration.
295:
296: The energy losses estimated from the experimental data are in reasonable agreement
297: with theoretical calculations \cite{Kop1,Kop2}.
298: Namely, our result $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm W/Be} \approx 50$~GeV/c
299: for $J/\Psi$ production at 800~GeV/c correspond to energy loss rate
300: \begin{equation}
301: \label{eq:concl_pA_JPsi}
302: {\rm d}E/{\rm d}z \approx 5{\rm ~GeV/fm},
303: \end{equation}
304: (We assume the length of full trajectory $\sim 1.5 R_A$ and we neglect
305: nuclear effects in Be target). The analysis \cite{Kop2} predicts
306: ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}z \approx 3$~GeV/fm for initial-state quark energy loss
307: rate, i.e. energy loss before the hard interaction point. However
308: initial-state quark energy losses is not the dominant effect in $J/\Psi$
309: production processes on nuclear targets. The main contribution to the
310: suppression of $J/\Psi$'s arises from final-state interactions. Also
311: there exists strong gluon shadowing at large $x_0$ as well as gluon
312: enhancement at small $x_0$. Nevertheless, Ref.~\cite{Kop2} does not
313: present how much projectile energy is spent on each nuclear effect.
314: (The effects of gluon shadowing for $J/\Psi$ production were calculated
315: in Ref. \cite{PSS}.) Thus we assume that main part of our result
316: Eq.~(\ref{eq:concl_pA_JPsi}) is explained by the mentioned effects.
317:
318: The estimations of energy losses in pairs Be-W and Be-Cu are larger
319: than the ratio of $A^{1/3}$ values (i.e. length of trajectory) for
320: W and Cu nuclei. It can be connected with
321: rather large error bars, or with the $A$-dependence of energy losses more
322: strong than $A^{1/3}$ behavior. The last reason is not excluded
323: because the multiplicity of secondary protons produced in hadron--nucleus
324: collisions in the nuclear targets fragmentation region with energies
325: $\leq 1$ GeV has $A$-dependence more strong than $A^{1/3}$
326: \cite{GGC,Fred}. On the other hand, the energies of these protons are
327: determined by energy losses of the incident particle.
328:
329: In the case of Drell-Yan pair production calculations \cite{Kop1}
330: predict quark energy loss rate
331: ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}z \approx 3$~GeV/fm. There also exists
332: shadowing effect in nuclear target, however there is no numerical estimate
333: for this effect in Ref.~\cite{Kop1}, it was considered in Ref.
334: \cite{APSS}. Our result $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm W/Be} \approx 12$
335: ~GeV/c obtained for Drell-Yan production corresponds to energy loss rate
336: ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}z \approx 1.2$~GeV/fm for full trajectory.
337: However one should take into account the path of the projectile before
338: the hard interaction point only, which is $\approx 4.4$~fm for W target\cite{Kop1}.
339: Thus ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}z \approx 2.7$~GeV/fm.
340: Assuming that shadowing effect is small
341: for Drell-Yan production at 800~GeV/{\it c} we conlude that our results are in
342: reasonable agreement with the \cite{Kop1} calculations.
343:
344: It is necessary to note that some part of QCD energy losses can be used for
345: nuclear destruction and fragmentation due to the final-state interactions.
346: This can explain rather large energy of secondary target nucleons and nuclear
347: fragments observed in \cite{Azimov1,Azimov2}.
348:
349: From the difference in the values of $\Delta p^{\rm lab.}_{\rm W/Be}$
350: for $pA$ and $\pi A$ collisions we can conclude that nuclear effects
351: probably depend on projectile energy.
352:
353: \vskip 0.3cm
354: We are grateful to V. T. Kim, N. N. Nikolaev and M. G. Ryskin for
355: discussions.
356:
357: \newpage
358:
359: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
360: \bibitem{Baldin1} A. M. Baldin {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 18}, 79 (1973).
361: \bibitem{Bayukov1} Yu. D. Bayukov {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 18}, 1246
362: (1973).
363: \bibitem{Frankfurt1} L. L. Frankfurt and M. L. Strikman, Phys. Rept.
364: {\bf 76}, 215 (1981).
365: \bibitem{Vogt1} R. Vogt, Phys. Rept. {\bf 310}, 197 (1999).
366: \bibitem{Vasiliev1} M. A. Vasiliev {\it et al.} (E866 Collab.),
367: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 2304 (1999).
368: \bibitem{Kop1} M. B. Johnson {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C65}, 025203
369: (2002).
370: \bibitem{Kop2} B. Kopeliovich {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A696}, 669
371: (2001).
372: \bibitem{Azimov1} S. A. Azimov {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 8}, 933 (1968).
373: \bibitem{Azimov2} S. A. Azimov {\it et al.}, Z. Phys. {\bf A300}, 47 (1981).
374: \bibitem{Badier1} J. Badier {\it et al.} (NA3 Collab.), Z. Phys.
375: {\bf C20}, 101 (1983).
376: \bibitem{Katsanevas1} S. Katsanevas {\it et al.} (E537 Collab.),
377: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 2121 (1988).
378: \bibitem{Leitch1} M. Leitch {\it et al.} (E866 Collab.),
379: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3256 (2000).
380: \bibitem{Alde1} D. M. Alde {\it et al.} (E772 Collab.),
381: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 133 (1991).
382: \bibitem{Kowitt1} M. S. Kowitt {\it et al.} (E605/E789 Collab.),
383: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 1318 (1994).
384: \bibitem{Gribushin1} A. Gribushin {\it et al.} (E672/E706 Collab.),
385: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 012001 (2000).
386: \bibitem{Abolins1} M. A. Abolins {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B82},
387: 145 (1979).
388: \bibitem{Hijing} M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, Comput. Phys. Commun.
389: {\bf 83}, 307 (1994).
390: \bibitem{Berdnikov1} Ya. A. Berdnikov {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. (in press).
391: \bibitem{Berdnikov2} Ya. A. Berdnikov {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. (in press).
392: \bibitem{PSS} C. Pajares, C. A. Salgado and Yu. M. Shabelski, Mod.
393: Phys. Lett. {\bf A13}, 453 (1998).
394: \bibitem{GGC} K. G. Gulamov, U. G. Gulyamov amd G. M. Chernov, Fiz.
395: Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra {\bf 9}, 554 (1978).
396: \bibitem{Fred} S. Fredriksson {\it et al.}, Phys. Rep. {\bf 144}, 187
397: (1987).
398: \bibitem{APSS} N. Armesto {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 61}, 125 (1998).
399:
400: \end{thebibliography}
401:
402: \begin{figure}[htb]
403: \centering
404: \includegraphics[width=.9\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig1.eps}
405: \caption{Differential cross section for $J/\Psi$ production in
406: $p$Cu and $p$Be collisions at 800~GeV/{\it c} \cite{Kowitt1}.}
407: \label{fig:E789initial}
408: \end{figure}
409:
410: \begin{figure}[htb]
411: \centering
412: \includegraphics[width=.9\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig2.eps}
413: \caption{The same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:E789initial}, but the spectrum for Cu was
414: shifted according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:xF}) with $p_A=0.5$~GeV/{\it c}.}
415: \label{fig:E789shifted}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418: \begin{figure}[htb]
419: \centering
420: \includegraphics[width=.9\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig3.eps}
421: \caption{The ratios of inclusive differential cross sections, calculated for different $p_A$
422: values.}
423: \label{fig:E789ratios}
424: \end{figure}
425:
426: \begin{figure}[htb]
427: \centering
428: \includegraphics[width=1.\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig4.eps}
429: \caption{(a) The ratio of inclusive differential cross section for $J/\Psi$ production
430: on W target to that on Be measured by E866 \cite{Alde1}.
431: (b) Combined spectrum (see text) for Be target (solid squares),
432: and spectrum for W (open squares) target extracted from the ratio shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:E866initial}a.}
433: \label{fig:E866initial}
434: \end{figure}
435:
436: \begin{figure}[htb]
437: \centering
438: \includegraphics[width=1.\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig5.eps}
439: \caption{The ratios of inclusive differential cross sections, calculated for different $p_A$
440: values.}
441: \label{fig:E866ratios}
442: \end{figure}
443:
444: \begin{figure}[htb]
445: \centering
446: \includegraphics[width=1.\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig6.eps}
447: \caption{$x_0$-spectra for $J/\Psi$'s produced in $\pi^{-}A$ collisions.
448: (a) The ratios of inclusive differential cross sections for $J/\Psi$
449: production on tungsten to that on beryllium \cite{Katsanevas1}.
450: (b) The invariant differential cross section for $J/\Psi$ production
451: on Be target.}
452: \label{fig:Pi_initial}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455: \begin{figure}[htb]
456: \centering
457: \includegraphics[width=1.\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig7.eps}
458: \caption{The ratios of inclusive differential cross sections for $J/\Psi$
459: production in $\pi^-A$ collisions at 125~GeV/{\it c}, calculated for
460: different $p_A$ values.}
461: \label{fig:Pi_ratios}
462: \end{figure}
463:
464: \begin{figure}[htb]
465: \centering
466: \includegraphics[width=1.\hsize]{ryzhinskiy_fig8.eps}
467: \caption{The ratios of inclusive differential cross sections for Drell-Yan
468: pair production in $pA$ collisions at 800~GeV/{\it c}, calculated for
469: different $p_A$ values.}
470: \label{fig:DrellYan}
471: \end{figure}
472:
473: \end{document}
474: