1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[aps,twocolumn]{revtex}
3: %\def\baselinestretch{2}
4: \textheight=9in
5: \textwidth=6.5in
6: \topmargin=-0.5in
7: \oddsidemargin=0in
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \begin{flushright} {OITS 697}\\
11: March 2001
12: \end{flushright}
13: \vspace*{1cm}
14:
15: \begin{center} {\Large {\bf The effects of gluon depletion on
16: $J/\psi$ suppression \\in $pA$ and $AA$ collisions}}
17: \vskip .75cm
18: {\bf Rudolph C. Hwa$^1$, J\'{a}n Pi\v{s}\'{u}t$^2$ and Neva
19: Pi\v{s}\'{u}tov\'{a}$^2$ }
20: \vskip.5cm
21:
22: {$^1$Institute of Theoretical Science and Department of Physics\\
23: University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5203, USA\\
24: \bigskip
25: $^2$Department of Physics, Comenius University, SK-84215,
26: Bratislava, Slovakia\\}
27: \end{center}
28:
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31:
32: The enhanced suppression of $J/\psi$ production at large $x_F$
33: in $pA$ collisions is studied in the framework of gluon
34: depletion at large $x_1$. The nonperturbative process that
35: modifies the gluon distribution as the gluons propagate in
36: nuclear matter is described by an evolution equation with a
37: kernal to be determined by phenomenology. With nuclear
38: shadowing and anti-shadowing taken into account, the effect on
39: the gluon distribution is shown to be a depletion in excess of
40: 40\% at $x_1 \approx 0.8$ for $A > 100$. There is a small
41: amount of enhancement of the gluon distribution at small
42: $x_1$, but it does not lead to any contradiction with the
43: existing data on $J/\psi$ suppression in the central region.
44: Extentions to $\psi^{\prime}$ suppression and $AB$ collisions
45: are also investigated in the framework of gluon redistribution.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: In an earlier paper \cite{hpp} we
51: presented the phenomenological evidence for the depletion of
52: high-momentum gluons as a projectile proton traverses a target
53: nucleus in
54: $pA$ collisions. Here we present a more complete discussion of
55: the subject with more technical details and with extension to
56: nucleus-nucleus collisions.
57:
58: Our approach is unconventional in that we do not make the
59: usual assumption that the parton distributions in a proton
60: remain unaltered as the proton propagates through a nucleus,
61: even if a hard subprocess occurs deep in the nucleus. That
62: assumption amounts to factorization, a property that has been
63: proven for $pp$ collision, but clearly must fail for $pA$
64: collision if $A$ is infinitely large. For realistic nuclear
65: sizes our alternative assumption that the parton distribution
66: can be modified led to $J/\psi$ suppression
67: \cite{hpp2} that cannot be distinguished from the effects of the
68: usual mechanisms \cite {rv,ks}. What is different now is the
69: appearance of new data on
70: $J/\psi$ suppression in $pA$ collisions at large $x_F$
71: \cite{ml}. Since those data cannot be explained in terms of
72: hadronic absorption of the produced $c\bar{c}$ state
73: \cite{hhk,aga,rv2}, we find more direct support for the idea of
74: gluon depletion before the hard subprocess that produces the
75: $c\bar{c}$ state
76: \cite{hpp}.
77:
78: The data of the Fermilab E$866$ experiment \cite{ml}
79: on the
80: $J/\psi$ suppression in $pA$ collisions at $800$ GeVc are
81: expressed as the ratio
82: \begin{eqnarray}
83: R\left(x_F,A\right)=\sigma_A\left(x_F\right) /
84: A\sigma_N\left(x_F\right)=A^{\alpha\left(x_F\right)-1}
85: \quad,
86: \label{1}
87: \end{eqnarray}
88: where $\sigma_{N,A}$ is the cross section for
89: $J/\psi$ production by a proton on a nucleon $(N)$ or on a nucleus
90: $(A)$. An analytical formula for $\alpha (x_F)$ is given in
91: \cite{ml}
92: \begin{eqnarray}
93: \alpha\left(x_F\right) = 0.96
94: \,\left(1-0.0519{x_F}-0.338{x^2_F}\right)\quad,
95: \label{2}
96: \end{eqnarray}
97: for $-0.1<{x_F}<0.9$. Equation (\ref{2}) differs
98: significantly from the one given in their preprint \cite{ml2},
99: on the basis of which the analysis in \cite{hpp} was done.
100: Here we perform a reanalysis based on the new
101: parameterization in Eq.~(\ref{2}).
102:
103: In our view there are three sources that can contribute to the
104: $x_F$ dependence, and we write them in a product form
105: \begin{eqnarray}
106: R\left(x_F, A\right) = G\left(x_F, A\right)
107: N\left(x_F, A\right) H\left(x_F, A\right)
108: \quad,
109: \label{3}
110: \end{eqnarray}
111: where $H(x_F,A)$ represents the hadronic
112: absorption of the $c \bar{c}$ state, $N(x_F,A)$ nuclear
113: shadowing, and
114: $G(x_F,A)$ the gluon depletion effect, defined as
115: \begin{eqnarray}
116: G\left(x_F\left(x_1\right),A\right)=g\left(x_1,A\right) /
117: g\left(x_1,0\right)
118: \quad,
119: \label{4}
120: \end{eqnarray}
121: $x_1$ being the momentum fraction of the gluon in the projectile
122: proton, and $g(x_1,A)$ being the effective gluon distributions of
123: that projectile in a nucleus A at the point of $c\bar c$
124: production, averaged over the penetration depth at which the
125: hard process occurs.
126:
127: By $H(x_F,A)$ we mean the
128: absorption factor that operates between the production of the
129: $c\bar{c}$ state and the detection of the final $J/\psi$ due to
130: any mechanism, including the interaction with comovers. Since no
131: good arguments have been advanced to show that $H(x_F,A)$ can
132: have a significant dependence on $x_F$ \cite{hhk,aga,rv2}, we
133: shall assume in the following that $H(x_F,A)$ is independent
134: of
135: $x_F$. This is not a serious limitation in our formalism. If
136: a reliable
137: $x_F$ dependence is found at a later date, we can easily
138: incorporate it in our analysis. For now we adopt the usual
139: Gerschal-H\"ufner form.
140: \begin{eqnarray}
141: H(A) = \exp \left[-\sigma \rho L (A) \right]
142: \label{5}
143: \end{eqnarray}
144: where $\sigma$ is the absorption cross section, $\rho$ the
145: nuclear density, and $L(A)$ the mean path length in $A$ that a
146: $c\bar{c}$ state propagates.
147:
148: In the next section the nuclear shadowing factor $N(x_F,A)$
149: will be discussed. We shall find a simple formula that can
150: represent the change in the gluon distribution in the target
151: nucleus due to shadowing and anti-shadowing. Such a formula
152: facilitates the analysis, and offers a simple parametrization
153: that is convenient to use, independent of the particular
154: problem that we apply it to here.
155:
156: The determination of the depletion factor $G(x_F (x_1),A)$ is
157: the main theme of this paper. In Sec.~3 we shall go
158: beyond a review of the content of Ref.~\cite{hpp} , not
159: only because the data has changed from those in the
160: preprint \cite{ml2}, resulting in numerical differences,
161: but also because we shall improve on \cite{hpp} in some
162: technical details and include some new material.
163:
164: In Sec.~$4$ we shall extend the result from the study of
165: the $pA$ problem to $AB$ collisions. We shall show how the
166: enhanced depletion at large $x_F$ does not affect the $J/\psi$
167: suppression at small $x_F$, which is where the existing data
168: for $AB$ collisions were collected. We shall have nothing to
169: add on the subject of enhanced suppression observed in
170: $Pb$-$Pb$ collisions beyond what we have advanced in
171: Ref.~\cite{hpp2}.
172:
173: \section {Nuclear Shadowing and Anti-shadowing}
174:
175: The nuclear shadowing and anti-shadowing problem has been
176: studied phenomenologically by Eskola {\it et.~al.}
177: \cite{ekr,eks}. Instead of focusing on the physics of the
178: origin of the problem in QCD, they analyzed the deep
179: inelastic scattering data of nuclear targets. On the basis
180: of DGLAP evolution
181: \cite{yd} they can determine the parton distribution at
182: any $Q^2>2.25$ GeV$^2$. The results are given in terms of
183: numerical parametrizations (called EKS98 \cite{eks}) of
184: the ratio
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: N_i^A (x,Q^2) = f_{i/A}(x,Q^2)/ f_i (x,Q^2),
187: \label{6}
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: where $f_i$ is the parton distribution of flavor $i$ for
190: the free proton and $f_{i/A}$ is that for a proton in a
191: nucleus $A$.
192:
193: For the purpose of $J/\psi$ production we are interested in
194: Eq.\ (\ref{6}) for only the gluons. We consider only the
195: dominant subprocess
196: $g_1(x_1) + g_2(x_2) \rightarrow c+\bar{c}$, where $x_1$ is
197: the momentum fraction of the projectile gluon whose
198: distribution is $g_1(x_1)$, and $x_2$ is that of the target
199: gluon whose distribution is $g_2(x_2)$. For the $c\bar{c}$
200: state produced with momentum fraction $x_F=x_1-x_2$, the
201: usual kinematical relations are
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: x_{1,2}= [(4 \tau + x_F)^{1/2} \pm x_F] /2,
204: \hspace{1cm} x_1x_2=\tau \equiv M^2_{J/\psi}/s,
205: \label{7}
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: where it is assumed that the $c\bar{c}$ state that turns to
208: $J/\psi$ is produced near threshold. Thus the virtuality of
209: the subprocess $g+g \rightarrow c + \bar{c}$ is given by the
210: value of $M^2_{J/\psi}$, or slightly higher. We shall take
211: $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$, a value that is chosen in EKS98 \cite{eks} to
212: give explicit values of ${N_i}^A(x_1,Q^2)$. For simplicity we
213: shall label the gluon distribution at $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$ by
214: $N(x_2,A)$.
215:
216: The numerical output of EKS98 for $N(x_2,A)$ is shown by
217: the points in Fig.~1 for $A=50$, $100$, and $200$. We
218: exhibit only the values for $x_2$ in the range
219: $0.01 \leq x_2 \leq 0.12$, since that is the range relevant for
220: the production of $J/\psi$ at $800$ GeV/c for $0<x_F<0.8$. For
221: the purpose of convenience in using those values of
222: $N(x_2,A)$ in analytic manipulation and computation, we
223: propose a simple formula that contains the shadowing and
224: anti-shadowing effects. Since the cross-over of the two
225: effects occurs at $x_2 = 0.02$ where $N(x_2,A) = 1$ for all $A$,
226: it is sensible to use an auxiliary variable $\xi$, defined by
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: \xi=3.912 + {\rm ln} x_2
229: \label{8}
230: \end{eqnarray}
231: which vanishes at $x_2=0.02$. Moreover, we notice that ${\rm
232: ln} N(x_2,A)$ depends linearly on ${\rm ln} A$ to a good
233: approximation, so it suggests a power-law behavior
234: \begin{eqnarray}
235: N(x_2,A)=A^{\beta(x_2)}.
236: \label{9}
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: The exponent $\beta(x_2)$ can be determined by fitting the
239: data for $A=100$. In terms of $\xi$ we find a good fit with
240: the parametrization
241: \begin{eqnarray}
242: \beta(\xi)= \xi(0.0284 + 0.0008 \xi-0.0041 \xi^2),
243: \label{10}
244: \end{eqnarray}
245: the result of which is shown in Fig.~2, where the points
246: are for ${\rm ln} N(x_2,A)/\ln A$ obtained from EKS98 at
247: $A=100$. This convenient formula for $\beta(\xi)$ can then
248: be used in conjunction with Eq.\ (\ref{8}) to determine
249: $N(x_2,A)$ for other values of $A$. The curves in Fig.~1
250: exhibit the good agreement between the data and our
251: parameterization for $A=50$, $100$, and $200$.
252:
253: In the following we shall simply use Eq.\ (\ref{9}) as a
254: summary of the effects of nuclear shadowing and
255: anti-shadowing for problems in $pA$ collisions where the
256: relevant range of $x_2$ is in the interval $0.01 \leq x_2 \leq
257: 0.12$.
258:
259: \section{Evolution of Gluon Distribution in a Nucleus}
260:
261: We now may regard $R(x_F,A)$ and $N(x_2,A)$ as known
262: phenomenologically. Thus, from Eq.\ (\ref{3}) we may write
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: G(x_F,A) H(A)=A^{\alpha(x_F)-\beta(x_2(x_F))-1}.
265: \label{11}
266: \end{eqnarray}
267: Although the form of $H(A)$ is given by Eq.\ (\ref{5}), we do
268: not know the value of $\sigma$ in the present circumstance
269: where we allow the possibility of gluon depletion. Hence, we
270: treat $H(A)$ temporarily as unknown, along with the depletion
271: factor $G(x_F,A)$. However, the $x_F$ dependence is completely
272: known from the RHS of Eq.\ (\ref{11}).
273:
274: To proceed we need some theoretical input on the possible form
275: of $G(x_F,A)$, or more directly the gluon distribution
276: $g(x_1,z)$ in the projectile, where $z$ is the distance
277: traversed in a nucleus. Note that we have refrained from
278: referring to the projectile as the proton, since the possible
279: modification of $g(x_1,0)$ for $z>0$ implies that the incident
280: proton loses its usual identity, in particular, the nature of
281: its partonic content, as the projectile, now identified only as
282: a flux of partons, propagates in the nuclear medium. How
283: $g(x_1,z)$ evolves in the nuclear medium is clearly a
284: nonperturbative process that involves multiple scatterings of
285: gluons and quarks at low virtualities. Nevertheless, for every
286: incremental distance, $dz$, that a gluon travels the
287: modification that $g(x_1,z)$ undergoes must be perturbative in
288: that $g(x_1,z+dz)-g(x_1,z)$ is small and is proportional to
289: $dz$. It is therefore reasonable to adopt an evolution
290: equation similar in spirit to that of DGLAP \cite{yd}, but
291: with the change in resolution scale $d {\rm ln} Q^2$ replaced
292: by the change in penetration depth $dz$, so that we write
293: \begin{eqnarray}
294: \frac{d}{dz} g(x,z)=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{dx^{\prime}}{x^{\prime}}
295: g(x^{\prime},z)Q(\frac{x}{x^{\prime}}),
296: \label{12}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: where the unknown kernel $Q(x/x^{\prime})$ controls the gain
299: and loss of the gluons in $dz$. $Q(y)$ cannot be determined by
300: perturbative calculation, as the splitting functions in pQCD
301: for $Q^2$ evolution. Equation (\ref{12}) is similar to the
302: nucleonic evolution equation proposed in \cite{rh}, except
303: that this is now at the parton level. In Eq.\ (\ref{12}) the
304: quark sector has been left out for simplicity. To be more
305: complete one should include also the effects of the couplings of
306: gluons with the quarks, a task that is deferred to the future.
307: Thus what we can achieve now is the determination of
308: an effective kernel $Q(y)$ that can account for the enhanced
309: suppression of
310: $J/\psi$ at large $x_F$.
311:
312: To determine the $z$ dependence of $g(x,z)$ let us take the
313: moments by defining
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: g_n(z)=\int_{0}^{1}dx \, x^{n-2}g(x,z)
316: \label{13}
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: and
319: \begin{eqnarray}
320: Q_n=\int_{0}^{1}dx \, x^{n-2} Q(y).
321: \label{14}
322: \end{eqnarray}
323: Then by the convolution theorem, Eq.\ (\ref{12}) becomes
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: dg_n(z)/dz=g_n(z)Q_n,
326: \label{15}
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: whose solution is
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: g_n(z)=g_n(0)e^{zQ_n}.
331: \label{16}
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: It is possible that Eq.\ (\ref{15}) is valid only when $z$ is
334: large enough, in which case Eq.\ (\ref{16}) should be
335: modified to read
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: g_n(z)=g_n(z_0)e^{(z-z_0)Q_n}
338: \label{17}
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: for $z$ greater than some positive value of $z_0$.
341:
342: To proceed,
343: let us substitute Eq.\ (\ref{4}) in (\ref{11}) and define
344: \begin{eqnarray}
345: J(x_1,A)\equiv g(x_1,0)A^{\alpha(x_F(x_1))-\beta(x_2(x_1))-1}
346: \label{18}
347: \end{eqnarray}
348: where the interrelationships among $x_1$,$x_2$ and $x_F$ are
349: specified by Eq.\ (\ref{7}). For $g(x_1,0)$ we use the
350: canonical form
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: g(x_1,0)=g_0(1-x_1)^5.
353: \label{19}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: The final result is insensitive to its form and independent of
356: $g_0$, which we shall set to be $1$. Thus we may regard
357: $J(x_1,A)$ as known. Since we also have
358: \begin{eqnarray}
359: J(x_1,A)=g(x_1,A)H(A),
360: \label{20}
361: \end{eqnarray}
362: its moments are, by virtue of Eqs.\ (\ref{5}) and (\ref{16}),
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: J_n(z)=g_n(0) {\rm exp} [z(Q_n-\sigma\rho)].
365: \label{21}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: Here and in the following we shall use $z$ (until Sec. 5) to
368: denote the average penetration depth (i.e., $z\equiv \bar z_A$)
369: in $A$ when a
370: $c\bar{c}$ state is produced by
371: $gg$ annihilation. It is then also the average length that the
372: $c\bar{c}$ must travel in $A$ and be subject to hadronic
373: absorption, i.e., $z=L(A)$.
374:
375: We can determine $J_n(z)$ by taking the moments of $J(x_1,A)$,
376: as expressed in Eq.\ (\ref{18}). However, there is a problem
377: in evaluating $J_n(z)=\int_{0}^{1}dx_1{x_1}^{n-2}J(x_1,z)$,
378: since $J(x_1,A)$ is ill-defined at $x_1=0$. According to
379: Eq.\ (\ref{7}), $x_2$ diverges as $x_1\rightarrow 0$; thus
380: limiting $x_2$ to $1$ implies that $x_1$ cannot be less than
381: $M^2_{J/\psi}/s$, a small but nonvanishing value.
382: Furthermore, $x_F$ becomes negative at small $x_1$, and we
383: lose any knowledge about $\alpha(x_F)$ for $x_F <- 0.1$
384: \cite{ml}. Also, $\beta (x_2)$ is not reliably known at large
385: $x_2$, so the RHS of Eq.\ (\ref{18}) cannot offer accurate
386: determination of $J(x_1,A)$ as $x_1\rightarrow 0$. These
387: defects can be suppressed by the factor ${x_1}^{n-2}$ in the
388: integrand, if we restrict $n$ to
389: $\geq 3$. We shall therefore determine $J_n$ only for $n \geq
390: 3$.
391:
392: For convenience, let us define
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: K_n(z)\equiv {\rm ln} [J_n(z)/g_n(0)]=z(Q_n-\sigma\rho).
395: \label{22}
396: \end{eqnarray}
397: Using Eqs.\ (\ref{2}), (\ref{10}) and
398: (\ref{19}) in
399: (\ref{18}), we can calculate $J_n(x)$ and therefore $K_n(z)$
400: for $n
401: \geq 3$. As mentioned earlier, Eq.\ (\ref{2}) is different
402: from a previous form of $\alpha (x_F)$ given in \cite{ml2} and
403: used in
404: \cite{hpp}. The results are shown as discrete points in
405: Fig.~3 for
406: $A=100$ and $200$. The corresponding values of $z$ are halves of
407: the average total path lengths of the nuclei, i.e.,
408: $z = 3R_A/4 = 0.9A^{1/3}$ fm and are therefore $z_1
409: = 4.177$ and $z_2 = 5.262$ fm, respectively.
410:
411: To extract the information contained in those points in
412: Fig.~3 we need an analytical representation of $K_n$. We
413: choose to fit $K_n$ by the following formula, different from
414: the one used in \cite{hpp},
415: \begin{eqnarray}
416: K_n=\sum_{i=0}^{3} k_i n^i + k_4 n^{1/2}.
417: \label{23}
418: \end{eqnarray}
419: The results of our fits are shown by the smooth curves in
420: Fig.~3. The corresponding parameters are given in Table
421: 1. Note that the fits allow us to extrapolate smoothly to
422: $n=2$, where we could not calculate $J_2$.
423:
424: \begin{table}
425: \begin{center}
426: \caption{Values of the coefficients $k_i$}
427: \vspace{.5cm}
428: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
429: \hline
430: A & z & $k_0$ & $k_1$ & $k_2$ & $k_3$ & $k_4$ \\ \hline
431: $100$ & $4.177$ & $-0.5444$ & $-0.2063$ & $5.87 \times 10^{-3}$ &
432: $-8.35 \times 10^{-5}$ & $0.424$ \\ \hline
433: $200$ & $5.262$ & $-0.6267$ & $-0.2354$ & $6.64 \times 10^{-3}$ &
434: $-9.39 \times 10^{-5}$ & $0.486$ \\
435: \hline
436: \end{tabular}
437: \end{center}
438: \end{table}
439:
440:
441: Before we determine $Q_n$ from $K_n$ in Eq.\ (\ref{22}), we
442: need to verify the $z$ dependence. It should first be
443: recognized that the experimental parameterization of the $A$
444: dependence, such as in Eq.\ (\ref{1}), is not compatible with
445: the theoretical expectation, such as in Eq.\ (\ref{5}) and
446: (\ref{21}), except in a certain range of $A$. Since a
447: power-law
448: $A^\gamma$, expressed as $e^{\gamma {\rm ln} A}$, is
449: approximately
450: $e^{\gamma^{\prime} z}$, where $z \propto A^{1/3}$, only when
451: ${\rm ln} A$ is approximately $A^{1/3}$, the correspondence
452: can only be for
453: $60<A<240$. With that understanding, let us nevertheless
454: calculate $J(x_1,z)$ for all $z<6$ using $A=(z/0.9)^3$ in
455: Eq.\ (\ref{18}), take the moments, and then determine $K_n(z)$
456: through the first half of Eq.\ (\ref{22}). The result is
457: shown as points in Fig.~4 for eleven values of $z$ between
458: $0.9$ and $5.9$, corresponding to $A$ from 1 to 282, and for
459: four representative values of $n$, viz., 3, 8, 13 and 20. The
460: straight lines are linear fits of the last six points for each
461: value of
462: $n$. Evidently, the $z$ dependence of $K_n(z)$ is very nearly
463: linear for $3.4<z<5.6$, which corresponds to $54<A<240$. Thus
464: our theoretical formalism is consistent with the
465: experimental data in the region where $lnA \approx A^{1/3}$.
466: At $z=0.9$, or $A=1$, all points converge to $K_n=0$, as they
467: should. We cannot reliably apply our formalism to the
468: collision problems where $A<50$. Fig.~4 also suggests that
469: even when $A$ is large, say $>100$, the gluon evolution
470: equation (\ref{12}) may not be valid at small $z$, here used
471: in the sense of penetration depth within the large nucleus,
472: not the average depth. In the following we shall limit our
473: consideration to only the linear portion of Fig.~4. In that
474: region the second half of Eq.\ (\ref{22}) should be treated
475: as differentially correct, i.e.,
476: \begin{eqnarray}
477: \Delta K_n (z)/ \Delta z =Q_n-\rho \sigma
478: \label{24}
479: \end{eqnarray}
480: where $\Delta K_n (z)= K_n(z+\Delta z)-K_n(z).$
481:
482: Since the values of $k_i$ in Table 1 are determined in the
483: linear region, we can use them to obtain $Q_n$. If we write
484: \begin{eqnarray}
485: Q_n= \sum_{i=0}^3 q_i n^i +q_4 n^{1/2},
486: \label{25}
487: \end{eqnarray}
488: then we have from Eqs.\ (\ref{23}) and (\ref{24})
489: \begin{eqnarray}
490: q_0=\Delta k_0/\Delta z + \rho \sigma , \quad \quad \
491: q_i=\Delta k_i/\Delta z \ (1\leq i \leq 4).
492: \label{26}
493: \end{eqnarray}
494: For the two $z$ values in Table 1, we get (with $\Delta z =
495: 1.086$ fm)
496: \begin{eqnarray}
497: \begin{array}{lll}
498: q_0=-0.0758 + \rho \sigma, & q_1=-0.0268, \\
499: q_2=7.13 \times 10^{-4}, & q_3=-9.6 \times 10^{-6}, & q_4=0.0568
500: \label{27}
501: \end{array}
502: \end{eqnarray}
503: in units of fm$^{-1}$.
504:
505: Since the absorption cross section $\sigma$ is unknown when
506: gluon depletion is not negligible, $q_0$ is not fixed by
507: Eq.\ (\ref{27}). Whatever the dynamics of gluon depletion
508: is, we require that the total gluon momentum does not increase
509: with
510: $z$. Since the gluon momentum is $\int dx g(x,z)=g_2(z)$, that
511: requirement implies in conjunction with Eq.\ (\ref{17}) that
512: $Q_2 \leq 0 $. Choosing the upper bound $Q_2=0$ leads to the
513: condition, on account of Eqs.\ (\ref{25}) and (\ref{27}),
514: \begin{eqnarray}
515: q_0=-(2q_1+4q_2+8q_3+\sqrt{2} q_4)=-0.0295.
516: \label{28}
517: \end{eqnarray}
518: With all parameters in Eq.\ (\ref{25}) now determined, the
519: $n$ dependence of $Q_n$ can be exhibited, as shown in
520: Fig.~5. Evidently, $Q_n$ is smoothly varying and the use of
521: the polynomials in Eqs.\ (\ref{23}) and (\ref{25}), which are
522: different from those used in \cite{hpp}, is justified.
523:
524: Although it is more direct to proceed immediately to the use of
525: Eq.\ (\ref{17}) to the determination of $g_n(z)$ and
526: therefore $G(x_1,z)$, which is our goal, there is some
527: advantage in an attempt to find $Q(y)$ at this point, while
528: we are on the subject of $Q_n$. The easiest way to do that is
529: to put $Q_n$ in form
530: \begin{eqnarray}
531: Q_n=c_0+ \sum_{j} c_j/(n+j-1) \ ,
532: \label{29}
533: \end{eqnarray}
534: used in \cite{hpp}, so that it can imply directly
535: \begin{eqnarray}
536: Q(y)=c_0 \delta (1-y) + \sum_{j} c_j y^i \ ,
537: \label{30}
538: \end{eqnarray}
539: To translate from Eq.\ (\ref{25}) and (\ref{29}), we fit
540: the values of $Q_n$ at the 19 integer points, $2 \leq n
541: \leq 20$, determined by (\ref{25}), by use of the formula
542: (\ref{29}) with a suitable number of terms in the sum. It
543: turns out that a good fit can be achieved with three terms:
544: $j = 3, 4$ and $5$. The result is
545: \begin{eqnarray}
546: c_0=-0.1988, \quad c_3=6.205, \quad c_4=-23.316,\quad
547: c_5=19.866
548: \quad .
549: \label{31}
550: \end{eqnarray}
551: We show in Fig.~6 both the discrete values of $Q_n$ at
552: integral $n$ and the fitted curve using Eqs.\ (\ref{29}) and
553: (\ref{31}). The corresponding function $Q(y)$, calculated
554: using Eqs.\ (\ref{30}) and (\ref{31}), is shown in Fig.~7. It
555: is evident that the $c_0$ and $c_4$ terms correspond to gluon
556: depletion, while the $c_3$ and $c_5$ terms correspond to
557: gluon regeneration.
558:
559: To determine $G(x_1,z)$ as defined in Eq.~(\ref{4}), we have
560: Eq.~(\ref{17}) that specifies the evolution in $z$ in the
561: linear region (see Fig.~4) from $z_0$. At this point we have
562: no formalism to extrapolate in the nonlinear region from
563: $z_0$ down to $0$, and it is in reference to $g(x_1, 0)$
564: that $G(x_1,z)$ is defined. However, in view of the fact
565: that the hadronic absorption term $H(A)$ is known empirically
566: to be an exponential, as in Eq.~(\ref{5}), i.e., ${\rm ln}
567: H(z)$ being linear in $z$ for all $z$, one may regard the
568: nonlinear portion of Fig.~4 to be due primarily to the
569: mismatch between
570: ${\rm ln} A$ and $A^{1/3}$ at low $A$. Then we adopt the
571: approximation that Eq.~(\ref{16}) is adequate for relating
572: $g_n(z)$ to $g_n(0)$. With $Q_n$ being known from
573: Eqs.~(\ref{25}), (\ref{27}) and (\ref{28}), and $g_n(0) = B
574: (n - 1, 6)$ which is the beta function, we can calculate
575: $g_n(z)$. The result is shown in Fig.~8 by the full (open)
576: circles for $A = 100\,(200)$, It is natural to fit the
577: resultant $g_n(z)$ by a linear combination of beta functions
578: in the form
579: \begin{eqnarray}
580: g_n(z) = \sum^3_{i = 1} a_i (z) B (n - 1, 5 + i )
581: \quad ,
582: \label{32}
583: \end{eqnarray}
584: The coefficients $a_i(z)$ are determined by fitting
585: $g_n(z)/g_n(0)$ in order to reduce the range of variation.
586: For the two values $z_1$ and $z_2$, corresponding to $A =
587: 100$ and $200$, we obtain
588: \begin{eqnarray}
589: \begin{array}{lll}
590: a_1(z_1 ) = 0.3526,&a_2(z_1) =
591: 1.44,&a_3(z_1) = - 0.78,\\
592: a_1(z_2 ) = 0.2362,&a_2(z_2 ) =
593: 1.655,&a_3(z_2 ) = - 0.869.
594: \end{array}
595: \label{33}
596: \end{eqnarray}
597: The curves in Fig.~8 are generated using Eqs.~(\ref{32}) and
598: (\ref{33}). Evidently, the fits are good.
599:
600: The inverse transform of the moments in Eq.~(\ref{32}) is
601: \begin{eqnarray}
602: g (x_1, z ) = \sum^3_{i = 1} a_i (z) (1 - x_1)^{4+i} \quad ,
603: \label{34}
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: whose implication for
606: \begin{eqnarray}
607: G(x_1, z) &=& g (x_1, z ) /g (x_1, 0)\nonumber \\
608: &=&a_1(z) + a_2 (z) (1 - x_1) + a_3 (z) (1-x_1)^2
609: \label{35}
610: \end{eqnarray}
611: can readily be calculated using Eq.~(\ref{33}). The results for
612: $z_1$ and $z_2$ are shown in Fig.~9. Clearly, there is
613: significant depletion of gluons at large $x_1$, roughly 40\%
614: at $x_1 \sim 0.8$. There is a small amount of regeneration at
615: small
616: $x_1$. The cross-over is at around
617: $x_1 \approx 0.2$. Although the enhancement at small $x_1$,
618: is at the 2 to 3\% level, in terms of the number of gluons in
619: a small $dx$ interval it is not insignificant compared to the
620: depletion at large $x_1$, because $g(x_1, 0)$ is strongly
621: damped at large $x_1$. That is how the condition
622: $Q_2 = 0$ is satisfied.
623:
624: \section{Suppression of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{\prime}$}
625:
626: Having determined $G(x_1, A)$ in the previous section, we can
627: now return to the problem of charmonium suppression,
628: including $\psi^{\prime}$. The Fermilab E866 experiment
629: \cite{ml} gives data for both $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{\prime}$ in
630: the form of $\alpha (x_F)$. In using Eq.~(\ref{3}) to
631: calculate $R(x_F, A)$, and then $\alpha (x_F)$, we have
632: Eqs.~(\ref{35}), (\ref{9}) and (\ref{5}) for $G(x_1, A)$,
633: $N(x_2, A)$ and $H(A)$, respectively. For both $J/\psi$ and
634: $\psi^{\prime}$ we use $\sigma = 6.5$ mb in $H(A)$. The
635: results on $\alpha (x_F)$ are shown as curves in Fig. 10 for
636: $J/\psi$ and Fig. 11 for $\psi^{\prime}$. The two curves in
637: each figure are for $A = 100$ and $200$; they are
638: sufficiently close to each other to be
639: almost independent of $A$, thereby affirming our gluon
640: evolution model for that range of $A$.
641:
642: The most significant part of what we have
643: learned from this work on the $pA$ data is that it is hard to
644: reproduce the strong damping of the measured $\alpha(x_F)$ at
645: large $x_F$ without a substantial amount of gluon depletion
646: at large $x_1$, as seen in Fig.\ 9. Furthermore, if there is
647: significant modification of the parton distribution as the
648: penetration depth increases, then it is hard to justify the
649: notion that a proton can traverse a large part of the target
650: nucleus without any changes, or that it can be wounded upon
651: the first collision with a nucleon and then remaining
652: unchanged thereafter.
653:
654: So far out attention has been given to the $x_F > 0$ region
655: only where data exist. However, the $x_F < 0$ region has
656: interesting physics also, and the data can be obtained either
657: at RHIC, or at a fixed target experiment with proton being
658: the target for a heavy-ion beam. At large negative $x_F,
659: \, x_1$ would be small where Fig. 9 shows a very small
660: enhancement, not depletion. On the other hand, $x_2$ would be
661: large, where
662: $N(x_2, A)$ would exhibit not only anti-shadowing, but also the
663: EMC and Fermi motion effects. As an illustration of the $x_F$
664: dependence, we have performed the calculation for
665: $J/\psi$ suppression in $pW$ collision at three energies and
666: for all $x_F$, negative as well as positive. The absorption
667: cross section is set at $\sigma = 8$ mb, a value found in the
668: next section. The values of $N(x_2, A)$ for the full $x_2$
669: range are obtained from EKS98 \cite{eks}. The results are shown
670: in Fig. 12. We see that the negative $x_F$ region shows very
671: little dependence on energy and reflects mainly the property of
672: $N(x_2, A)$.
673:
674: Gluon depletion of the type discussed in this paper has no
675: effect on the suppression of $J/\psi$ in the
676: $x_F < 0$ region. However, there is another type of gluon
677: depletion, discussed in the second paper in Ref. \cite{hpp2},
678: called nonlinear depletion, that can influence the survival
679: probability in the $x_F < 0$ region. When $x_2$ is large, the
680: fast gluons in the rear part of the nucleus can catch up and
681: interact with the slow gluons released by the $p$-$N$
682: collisions in the front part of the nucleus, leading to a
683: depletion of gluon at large $x_2$. Although this involves the
684: interaction between gluons in different nucleons in the
685: nucleus, it is not nuclear shadowing, since the conventional
686: nuclear shadowing at low $x_2$ does not require the invasion
687: of an external proton to initiate the cascading interactions
688: of gluons among the broken nucleons. We have no prediction on
689: the nature of the effect of this type of depletion. If the
690: experimental data on the production rate differ significantly
691: from the curves in Fig. 12 in the $x_F < 0$ region, then there
692: will be strong motivation to consider this unusual type of
693: gluon depletion.
694:
695: \section{Nucleus-nucleus Collisions}
696:
697: Having investigated the $pA$ collision problem above, and
698: finding the necessity to consider the depletion of gluons in
699: the projectile before the production of $c\bar{c}$ states in
700: the $x_F > 0$ region, it is natural to ask next what the
701: implication would be for the $J/\psi$ suppression problem in
702: $AB$ collisions. Even without any detailed calculations it is
703: straightforward to infer that there will be enhanced
704: suppression at large $x_F$. However, the currently available
705: data on $J/\psi$ suppression in nuclear collisions are from
706: CERN-SPS, and are limited to the central rapidity region. It
707: is therefore our burden to show that the gluon depletion
708: mechanism discussed in Sec. 3 is consistent with the existing
709: nuclear collision data at small
710: $x_F$.
711:
712: In Sec.~3 we have used
713: $z$ mainly as the average penetration depth in the target
714: nucleus where
715: $c\bar{c}$ is produced, although in the evolution equation
716: (\ref{12}) $z$ is the actual path length. Since in this
717: section we need to average the production point over all impact
718: parameters in the $AB$ collisions, we now restore $z$ to be
719: actual path length of a gluon in a nucleus. Thus we allow it
720: to vary from 1 to 12 fm. We use Eq. (\ref{16}) to determine
721: $g_n(z)$ at all odd integer points in the range $1 \leq z \leq
722: 12$ (for the sake of simplicity in fitting), and then fit them
723: at each such value of
724: $z$ by the formula (\ref{32}). The resulting values of
725: $a_i(z)$ are shown by the points in Fig.~13, they are in turn
726: fitted by quadratic equations of the form
727: \begin{eqnarray}
728: a_i(z) = b_{i0} + b_{i1}z + b_{i2}z^2 \quad .
729: \label{36}
730: \end{eqnarray}
731: The result is shown by the curves in Fig.\ 13. The
732: corresponding coefficients are
733: \begin{eqnarray}
734: \begin{array}{lll}
735: b_{10} = 0.974, & b_{11} = -0.175, &b_{12} =
736: 0.0068, \\ b_{20} = 0.0866, & b_{21} = 0.402, &b_{22} = -0.0202,
737: \\ b_{30} = -0.066, & b_{31} = -0.226, &b_{32} = 0.0142.
738: \end{array}
739: \label{37}
740: \end{eqnarray}
741: Using Eqs. (\ref{36}) and (\ref{37}) in (\ref{34}), we
742: can evaluate
743: $g\left(x_1, z\right)$ at all $x_1$ and $z$.
744:
745: The cross section for the production of $J/\psi$ in
746: $AB$ collisions can be calculated in the standard way. We shall
747: just write it down as follows (see, e.g., Refs \cite{hpp2,rv}):
748: \begin{eqnarray}
749: \sigma_{J/\psi} &=& \int d^2b\, d^2s\, dz_A\, dz_B \, \rho_A
750: (\vec{s}, z_A) \rho_B (\vec{s}-\vec{b}, z_B)\nonumber\\
751: &&\cdot \int {dx_1 \over x_1} {dx_2 \over x_2}\, g_A (x_1, L_B-z_B)\,g_B (x_2,
752: L_A-z_A)\, N(x_1,A) N (x_2, B)\nonumber\\
753: &&\cdot e ^{- \sigma_a \left[\rho_A (L_A + z_A) + \rho_B (L_B
754: + z_B)\right]}
755: \hat{\sigma} _{gg \rightarrow c\bar{c}} (x_1, x_2)
756: \quad ,
757: \label{38}
758: \end{eqnarray}
759: where we have included the $z_{A,B}$ dependences in the gluon
760: distributions $g_{A,B} (x_{1,2}, L_{B, A}-z_{B, A})$
761: and the nuclear shadowing functions $N(x_1, A)$ and $N(x_2,
762: B)$. $L_{A,B}$ are the path length through $A(B)$
763: at the distances $\vec{s}$ and $\vec{s}-\vec{b}$,
764: respectively, from the centers of the nuclei, i.e.
765: \begin{eqnarray}
766: L_A = (R_A^2 - s^2)^{1/2}\quad, \quad \quad L_B = (R^2_B
767: -\left|\vec{s}- \vec{b} \right|^2)^{1/2}\quad .
768: \label{39}
769: \end{eqnarray}
770: The gluon distribution $g_{A} (x_{1}, L_{B}-z_{B})$ is given by
771: [see Eq. (\ref{34})]
772: \begin{eqnarray}
773: g_{A} (x_{1}, L_{B}-z_{B}) = \sum^3_{i = 1} a_i (L_B-z_B)
774: (1 - x_1)^{4+i} \quad ,
775: \label{40}
776: \end{eqnarray}
777: and similarly, for $g_B(x_2, z_A)$, the coefficients $a_i(z)$
778: in Eq.~(\ref{34}) are replaced by $L_A - z_A$, which is the
779: distance that a parton in $B$ travels in $A$ before the
780: production of $c\bar{c}$ at $z_A$. The distance that a
781: $c\bar{c}$ state travels in $A$ is
782: $L_A + z_A$, and $z_A$ is integrated from $-L_A$ to $+L_A$.
783: For the energies at CERN-SPS, $\sqrt{s} \approx 18-20$ GeV,
784: and for $x_F \approx 0$, the hard cross section
785: $\hat{\sigma}_{gg \rightarrow c\bar{c}} (x_1, x_2)$ restricts
786: the gluon momentum fractions to $x_1 \approx x_2 \approx
787: M_{J/\psi}/ \sqrt{s} \approx 0.16$.
788:
789: The survival probability is
790: \begin{eqnarray}
791: S^{AB}_{J/\psi} &=&
792: \sigma^{AB}_{J/\psi}/\sigma^{AB(0)}_{J/\psi}\nonumber \\
793: &=& N^{-1}_{AB} \int d^2b d^2s \int^{L_A}_{-L_A}dz_A
794: \int^{L_B}_{-L_B}dz_B W (\vec{b}, \vec{s}, z_A, z_B )
795: \label{41}
796: \end{eqnarray}
797: where
798: \begin{eqnarray}
799: W (\vec{b}, \vec{s}, z_A, z_B) &=& G_A (x_1, L_B-z_B)\,G_B
800: (x_2, L_A-z_A)\, N(x_1,A) N (x_2, B) \nonumber\\
801: &&\cdot e ^{- \sigma_a \left[\rho_A (L_A + z_A) + \rho_B (L_B
802: + z_B)\right]}
803: \quad ,
804: \label{42}
805: \end{eqnarray}
806: and $N_{AB}$ is the same integral in Eq.~(\ref{41}) but with
807: $W (\vec{b}, \vec{s}, z_A, z_B)$ replaced by 1. $G_A (x_1,
808: L_B-z_B)$ is as given in Eq.~(\ref{35}) except that $z$ is
809: replaced by $L_B-z_B$. Because of both the gluon enhancement at
810: $x_{1,2}\simeq 0.16$ and the anti-shadowing, the absorption
811: cross section
812: $\sigma_a$ now has to be somewhat larger than before
813: \cite{hpp2}. An overall agreement with all the $pA$ and $AB$
814: collision data, except the $Pb$-$Pb$ case, can be achieved with
815: the use of one value of $\sigma_a = 8$ mb. The result is
816: given in Table 2 for the various $AB$ cases. Fig.~14 shows
817: \begin{table}[h]
818: \begin{center}
819: \caption{Survival probability for various $AB$ collisions}
820: \vspace{.5cm}
821: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
822: $AB$&$pp$&$pC$&$pAl$&$pW$&$pU$&$OCu$&$OU$&$SU$&$PbPb$\\ \hline
823: $S$&1&0.85&0.82&0.70&0.68&0.67&0.58&0.56&0.49\\ \hline
824: \end{tabular}
825: \end{center}
826: \end{table}
827: how those values compare with the experimental data \cite{mg}
828: by the straightline segments that connect those successive
829: points. It is evident that apart from the $Pb$-$Pb$ case the
830: agreement with the data is satisfactory. Thus we can
831: conclude that the gluon depletion mechanism used to treat
832: the $pA$ problem leads to no disagreement with the $AB$
833: collisions---except that the $Pb$-$Pb$ case remains as an
834: anomaly.
835:
836: Finally, we compute the $x_F$ dependence of the $J/\psi$
837: suppression factor for just one nuclear-collision case as an
838: example, which we take to be $Pb$-$Pb$. We consider two
839: energies: $E_{\rm lab} = 160$ GeV and $\sqrt{s} = 60$ GeV
840: for RHIC. Except for the kinematics in $\hat{\sigma}_{gg
841: \rightarrow c\bar{c}}$ that affects the values of $x_1$ and
842: $x_2$, the cross section and survival factor can be
843: calculated as before. The results are shown in Fig. 15, which
844: exhibits a substantial degree of suppression at large $x_F$.
845: Any data at large $x_F$ would put considerable constraint on
846: the models that attempt to explain the anomalous suppression
847: at small $x_F$.
848:
849: \section{Conclusion}
850:
851: In our attempt to understand the enhanced suppression of
852: $J/\psi$ at large $x_F$, we have found that the depletion of
853: gluons at large $x_1$ in the projectile is the most natural
854: explanation for the effect. We have proposed an evolution
855: equation for the gluon distribution as the gluons propagate in
856: a nuclear medium. The depletion at high $x_1$ contributes to
857: a mild growth of the gluon distribution at small $x_1$.
858: However, that growth does not lead to any contradiction with
859: the existing data on $J/\psi$ suppression at mid-rapidity.
860: Indeed, we have gone further to show where to find
861: informative clues on the dynamics of suppression at large
862: (positive and negative) $x_F$ in both $pA$ and $AB$
863: collisions.
864:
865: What we have done here is only a modest first step towards
866: understanding parton evolution in nuclear matter. While
867: concentrating on the gluons, we have ignored the influence of
868: the quark sector, a subject to be investigated at a later
869: point. The depletion of quarks at large $x$ reveals itself in
870: the suppression of dilepton and leading meson production at
871: large $x_F$, the experimental evidences for which exist,
872: though in subtle ways. Because of the conservation of Fermion
873: number, the degradation of the quark distribution at large $x$
874: cannot be substantial. Nevertheless, the influence on the
875: gluon distribution at small $x$ may not be negligible.
876:
877: An important implication of this work is that in $pA$ or $AB$
878: collisions the concept of a nucleon propagating through
879: nuclear matter as an identifiable, fixed entity needs
880: modification. The usual notion that in nuclear
881: collisions the total transverse energy $E_T$ is proportional to
882: the number of nucleon-nucleon collisions would seem to have
883: difficulty in reconciling with the insistence that the nucleons
884: remain unaltered, if each inelastic collision of the nucleons
885: contributes a fraction of their energies to $E_T$. The wounded
886: nucleon model \cite{bbc} makes a crude approximation of what goes
887: downstream as an average quantity that is different from the
888: incident nucleon, but ignores the way it changes as it
889: propagates. Our evolution equation indicates that the parton
890: flux changes continuously and may emerge with a profile that
891: cannot be identified with that of a free nucleon in any sensible
892: comparison. The revelation made by this understanding will
893: undoubtedly affect many aspects of high-energy nuclear
894: collisions.
895:
896: \vspace{.5cm}
897: \centerline {\large{\bf Acknowledgment}}
898: \vspace{.3cm}
899: We are grateful to Kari Eskola for providing us with the Fortran
900: codes for EKS98. This work was supported, in part, by the
901: U.S.-Slovakia Science and Technology Program, the U. S. National
902: Science Foundation under Grant No. INT-9319091 and by the U. S.
903: Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40972.
904:
905: \newpage
906:
907: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
908:
909: %1
910: \bibitem{hpp}R.\ C.\ Hwa, J.\ Pi\v{s}\'{u}t, N.\
911: Pi\v{s}\'{u}tov\'{a}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 4008 (2000).
912:
913: %2
914: \bibitem{hpp2} R.C. Hwa, J. Pi\v{s}\'{u}t, and N.
915: Pi\v{s}\'{u}tov\'a, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 56}, 432 (1997); {\bf
916: 58}, 434 (1998).
917:
918: %3
919: \bibitem{rv}R.\ Vogt, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 310}, 197 (1999).
920:
921: %4
922: \bibitem{ks} D. Kharzeev and H. Satz in {\it Quark-Gluon Plasma
923: 2}, edited by R.C. Hwa (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
924:
925: %5
926: \bibitem{ml}M.\ J.\ Leitch {\it et al}, (FNAL E866/NuSea
927: Collaboration) Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
928: {\bf 84}, 3256 (2000).
929:
930:
931: %6
932: \bibitem{hhk}Y.B. He, J. H\"ufner, and B.Z. Kopeliovich, Phys.\
933: Lett.\ B {\bf 477}, 93 (2000).
934:
935: %7
936: \bibitem{aga}F.\ Arleo, P.-B.\ Gossiaux, T.\ Gousset and J.\
937: Aichelin, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 61}, 054906 (2000).
938:
939: %8
940: \bibitem{rv2}R.\ Vogt, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 61}, 035203 (2000).
941:
942: %9
943: \bibitem{ml2}M.\ J.\ Leitch {\it et al.} (FNAL E866/NuSea
944: Collaboration) nucl-ex/9909007.
945:
946: %10
947: \bibitem{ekr}K.J.\ Eskola, V.J.\ Kolhinen, and P.V.\ Ruuskanen,
948: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 535}, 351 (1998).
949:
950: %11
951: \bibitem{eks}K.\ J.\ Eskola, V.\ J.\ Kolhinen, and C.\ A.\
952: Salgado, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9}, 61 (1999).
953:
954: %12
955: \bibitem{yd}Yu Dokshitzer, Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 46}, 1649
956: (1977); V.\ N.\ Gribov and L.\ N.\ Lipatov, Sov.\ Nucl.\ Phys.
957: {\bf 15}, 438, 675 (1972); G.\ Altarelli and G.\ Parisi, Nucl.\
958: Phys.\ B {\bf 126}, 298 (1977).
959:
960: %13
961: \bibitem{rh}R.C.\ Hwa, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 492 (1984).
962:
963: %14
964: \bibitem{mg}M.\ Gonin {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A610},
965: 404c (1996); M.\ C.\ Abreu {\it et al.} (NA50 Collaboration),
966: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B410}, 337 (1997); {\bf B447}, 28 (2000).
967:
968: %15
969: \bibitem{bbc}A.\ Bia\l as, M.\ Bleszynski, and W.\ Czy\.{z},
970: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B111}, 461 (1976).
971:
972: \end{thebibliography}
973:
974: \newpage
975: \begin{center}
976: \section*{Figure Captions}
977: \end{center}
978:
979: \begin{description}
980: \item[Fig.\quad 1]\quad Nuclear shadowing and anti-shadowing
981: factor taken from EKS98 \cite{eks} for $Q^2 = 10$ GeV$^2$.
982: The curves are fits by the simple formula in
983: Eq.~(\ref{9}).
984: \item[Fig.\quad 2]\quad The $\beta (\xi)$ function used to fit
985: EKS98 data points at $A = 100$.
986: \item[Fig.\quad 3]\quad $K_n$ calculated from the moments at
987: discrete $n$ and fitted by the formula in Eq.~(\ref{23}).
988: \item[Fig.\quad 4]\quad The $z$ dependences of $K_n(z)$. The
989: lines are straight-line fits in the large $z$ region.
990: \item[Fig.\quad 5]\quad $Q_n$ as calculated from
991: Eq.~(\ref{25}).
992: \item[Fig.\quad 6]\quad The points of $Q_n$ are determined
993: from Eq.~(\ref{25}) or Fig.~5 at integer $n$ values; the
994: curve is a fit using Eq.~(\ref{29}).
995: \item[Fig.\quad 7]\quad The kernal $Q(y)$ as calculated from
996: Eq.~(\ref{30}).
997: \item[Fig.\quad 8]\quad $g_n$ for two values of
998: $A$.
999: \item[Fig.\quad 9]\quad The ratio of gluon distributions,
1000: $G(x_1, A)$, for two values of $A$.
1001: \item[Fig. 10]\quad $\alpha (x_F)$ for $J/\psi$ production.
1002: The data points are from Ref.~\cite{ml}; the curves
1003: represent our result.
1004: \item[Fig. 11] \quad $\alpha (x_F)$ for $\psi^{\prime}$
1005: production. The data points are from Ref.~\cite{ml}; the curves
1006: represent our result.
1007: \item[Fig. 12]\quad The survival probability for $J/\psi$
1008: production in $pW$ collisions at different energies for the
1009: entire range of $x_F$.
1010: \item[Fig. 13]\quad The $z$ dependences of the coefficients
1011: $a_i (z)$.
1012: \item[Fig. 14]\quad The survival probability in $AB$
1013: collisions. The data points are from Ref.~\cite{mg}; the line
1014: is composed of straightline sections connecting the
1015: calculated points listed in Table 2.
1016: \item[Fig. 15]\quad The survival probability for $J/\psi$ in
1017: $Pb$-$Pb$ collision for all $x_F$ at two energies.
1018:
1019: \end{description}
1020: \end{document}
1021:
1022:
1023: