1 / 59

Experimental Studies of QCD in p/d/e-A Collisions at RHIC, the LHC, and e-RHIC

Explore the physics goals, nuclear effects, jet structure, energy loss, baryon production, and tests of pQCD in p-A (d-A) collisions. Understand factors like shadowing, saturation, and diffraction in collisions at RHIC and LHC. Delve into hard effects, factorization, and universality in high-pT hadron production at large xT. Investigate the reliability of pQCD at varying energies and factorization scales. Analyze the impact of nuclear effects on prompt photon production. Gain insights into A-A hard scattering rates and the centrality of soft and hard scatters in d-Au collisions at RHIC.

mariesmith
Download Presentation

Experimental Studies of QCD in p/d/e-A Collisions at RHIC, the LHC, and e-RHIC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Experimental Studies of QCD in p/d/e-A Collisions at RHIC, the LHC, and e-RHIC Prof. B.A. Cole Columbia University

  2. p-A Physics Goals • Nuclear effects (hard) • Shadowing / saturation @ low xA. • Jet structure / mono-jets @ low xA. • pT broadening / energy loss. • Modifications of baryon production. • Tests of pQCD: factorization / universality. • Nucleus as a filter (soft) • Diffraction. • Proton break-up, color transparency. • Baryon junction excitation. • Soft phenomenology. • In this talk: focus on “hard” effects (?)

  3. Why p-A (d-A) Collisions ? • Probe Initial-State Effects at RHIC • Shadowing of Nuclear PDF’s • Parton saturation • Cronin effect • p broadening of hard processes • It’s becoming clear that these are all due to or reflect the same underlying physics • Unique feature of RHIC measurements • Ability to constrain “centrality” – i.e. impact parameter range of d-A collisions. peripheral central

  4. Hard Scattering in p-p Collisions p-p di-jet Event STAR • Factorization: separation of  into • Short-distance physics: • Long-distance physics: ’s From Collins, Soper, StermanPhys. Lett. B438:184-192, 1998

  5. Single High-pt Hadron Production data vs pQCD KKP Kretzer • NLO calculation agrees well with PHENIX 0 spectrum (!?) • BUT, FF dependence ? • Lore: KKP better for gluons • Includes soft-gluon resummation! Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 241803 (2003)

  6. Initial and final state radiation leads to QCD evolution Parton distributions Fragmentation func’s Well-controlled (infrared safe) evolution depends on cancellation of real and virtual radiation. Why does this matter? Radiation  broadening of transverse momenta Phase space restrictions inhibit the real/virtual cancellation. High pT hadron production at large xT (low s). Heavy quark production at low transverse momenta. “Re-summation” of large logarithms needed. But QCD is not Nearly So Simple …

  7. Application of pQCD vs s Soffer and Bourrely, Eur. Phys. J. C36:371-374,2004 • How well does NLO pQCD work as we go down in energy from RHIC ? • Clearly describes data more poorly for decreasing s. • And for more forward production. • Also, sensitivity to factorization scale also grows.

  8. Threshold re-summation • Threshold & soft gluon resummation (NLL) improves agreement with data at lower s. • Much smaller effect for RHIC at mid-rapidity. • But still a factor of ~2! • pT dependence ?? • What about at forward rapidity??

  9. Forward  Production at RHIC Soffer and Bourrely, Eur. Phys. J. C36:371-374,2004 • NLO pQCD works at RHIC @ large xF • But ~40% scale error (=pT vs =pT/2) • Re-summed NLO (Vogelsang) also agrees with data. • But, scale error in non-resummed NLO: • Strong sensitivity to “nuclear” effects???

  10. PHENIX: 200 GeV p-p Prompt  • Background removed via combination of: • (Jet) isolation cuts • 0 decay tag • Statistical subtraction • Spectrum and yield well-described by NLO pQCD (w/ threshold & recoil resummation). • ~ 15% scale error above 5 GeV/c. • More work needed to go below 5 GeV/c.

  11. A-A Hard Scattering Rates • Parton flux density  “thickness” • For point-like interactions: • dNhard / dA  product of nuclear T’s • Integrate over transverse area • Then • Nbinary (also known as Ncoll) is fiction • no successive nucleon-nucleon scattering ! • Just a convenience (pure number not fm-2)

  12. View in nucleus rest frame For mid-rapidity jet with MT Relative to nucleus, y=5.4 E  pL = MT cosh(y)  100 MT Lorentz boost:  = cosh(y)  100 Also, Jet formation time:  ~1/ mT Giving (jet) formation length (LF ) LF = 20 GeV fm / mT From this simple analysis we can conclude: All for the “action” for mid-rapidity particle production (and forward) occurs along the straight path of the incoming nucleon. Even high-pT and heavy quark production processes may be affected by coherence in the multiple scattering process. New at RHIC: Ability to select on “centrality” (poor man’s impact parameter) Coherence in p/d-A @ RHIC

  13. d-Au “Centrality” • # soft scatters of n/p: • Parameterize multiplicity at large  vs n, p. • Cut data according to fraction of total dA. • For each, determine TdAu • e.g for PHENIX (in %) • 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-88 • Define:

  14. STAR d-Au @ High-pT • Beware: • Top plot is RdA • Bottom plot is Rcp • Strong enhancement in charged hadron production at =0. • Enhancement larger for baryons than for mesons. • Ks similar to  •  similar to 

  15. PHENIX: d-Au Neutral Mesons • Now evaluate consistency with pQCD: • TAB scaling (factorization)  production vs centrality 0 production vs centrality

  16. PHENIX d-Au 0 vs Centrality • Small Cronin effect (not expected to be large) • It is now known that preliminary data suffer from small trigger bias (central will go peripheral ).

  17. PHENIX d-Au  Production • PHENIX sees small Cronin effect • Approx. consistent within errors with STAR Ks result • Enhancement seen in charged (baryons) all the more striking!

  18. PHOBOS: d-Au hRdA • Clearly the “enhancement” of charged hadron production in d-Au depends on rapidity (). •  dependence suggests suppression for >1 nucl-ex/0406017, PRC in press nucl-ex/0406017, PRC in press

  19. PHENIX d-Au Forward/Backward h • PHENIX observes similar trend in hadron spectra • Suppression relative to “expected” TAB scaling • Suppression greater for more central collisions • Suppression NOT confined to large  only!

  20. BRAHMS: d-Au RdAor Rcp vs  • BRAHMS also sees suppression of (h-) yields at larger  (beware “isospin” effect for =2.2, =3.2) • Suppression increases for more central collisions.

  21. BRAHMS – A closer look =3 • Rcp shows suppression increases with TAu • Clearer than RdA (pp data?) • Suppression smooth in  • But see h+/h- difference ! • Reflects Z=+1 of d ?? • Rcp with (h++h-)/2 still shows suppression. Rcp

  22. Kharzeev, Kovchegov, Tuchin(Phys.Lett.B599:23-31,2004) Evolution from enhancement (Cronin effect) at mid-rapidity to suppression at forward rapidity. h-RdA modified by charge bias in p-p coll’s. Rcp less sensitive. Forward Suppression (CGC ??)

  23. Model Comparisons (I) • Vitev(nucl-th/0302002) • pQCD w/ shadowing • Include self-consistent p broadening, dE/dx • Both elastic & radiative •  correct enhancement at mid-rapidity • But EKS anti-shadowing overestimates RdA • Predict RdA >1at y = 3 • dE/dx small effect. • But significant dE/dx effects at y = -3.

  24. Vitev and Qiu: Higher Twist • “Higher Twist”: • multiple exchanges between projectile & target. • Vitev & Qiu: coherent multiple scattering • Effective rescaling of x of parton from deuteron.

  25. Model Comparisons (II) A. Accardi nucl-th/0402101 • Describe hard scattering in nuclear rest frame. • “Cronin effect” from multiple semi-hard scattering • With unitarity corrections: • Fit to p-p + Fermilab p-A • Reproduces y=0 0 Rcp • But not y=3 *** • Even if opacity increased x3 • BRAHMS data changed • But p dependence wrong …

  26. We don’t have to look very hard to see the effects of coherence. Effects near mid- disappear by pT ~ 6 (?) @  = 3.2 kinematic limit: pT  8 GeV/c. Limited phase space for truly high-pT physics (Semi) Hard Scattering in d-A @ RHIC Brahms

  27. d-A J/ Production (from M. Leitch) E866: PRL 84, 3256 (2000)NA3: ZP C20, 101 (1983)  compared to lower s RdA Low x2 ~ 0.003 (shadowing region) • Not universal versus X2 : not shadowing !?? • BUT does scale with xF ! - why? • Initial-state gluon energy loss depends on x1~xF - weak at RHIC energy? • But Kopeliovich: • Effect can be due to “energy loss” (in gold) xF = xd - xAu Klein,Vogt, PRL 91:142301,2003 Kopeliovich, NP A696:669,2001 • Data favors (weak) shadowing + (weak) absorption ( > 0.92) • With current statistics hard to separate different nuclear effects • Will need more d-Au data!

  28. Summary of d-A @ RHIC • Observe clear suppression of forward hadron production at pT >~ 4 GeV/c. • Continuation of trend over large y range. • Does not fit within pQCD calculations • Issue: EMC (0.2 < x < 0.9) suppression of gluons typically included in calculations, valid??? • weak Cronin effect at mid-y for mesons. • But, also clearly depends on rapidity. • Some crucial aspect of physics is missing in “pQCD” calculations. • Kopeliovich: factorization breaking? • “Sudakov suppression” – but at low/negative xF ?

  29. The ability to select on centrality in d(p)-A collisions is NEW and very important. Potentially the first opportunity to measure the impact parameter dependence of: Initial-state broadening, Shadowing, … Observations of centrality dependence have already been important. But, there are some limitations: Rely on Glauber model to indirectly relate “centrality” observables to impact parameter. Kopeliovich: Flaw in Glauber models due to neglect of diffraction – which I think is a real issue. May be important for understanding RCP. Centrality in d(p)-A

  30. Di-hadron Azimuthal () Correlations • jT represents hadron pT relative to jet • kT represents the di-jet momentum imbalance • “y” implies projection onto transverse plane. Jet

  31. PHENIX d-Au/p-p,  - h,  Correlations PHENIX preliminary 1-2 GeV/c 0.4-1 GeV/c 2-3 GeV/c 3-5 GeV/c • “Trigger” pion pT > 5 GeV/c • Four different associated hadron pT bins • Clearly see role of constant jT, contribution from kT d-Au p-p

  32. PHENIX: Di-jet KT • No jet reconstruction in PHENIX (yet) • But can measure KT via two-hadron  correlations. • Additional broadening from fragmentation. • But can be measured in single jet. • Then: • Study vs ph1 • KT Same in p-p, d-Au? • Sensitivity ?? • More work needed.

  33. Studying Jet Properties @ RHIC • Use hadron pairs to study jet properties • pout dist. has both non-pert. (Gaussian) + hard (power) contributions. Pout Pout Jet PHENIX, From J. Jia, DNP’04 Talk Radiative tails pp PHENIX Preliminary

  34. Jet Properties in d-Au • Compare pout dist’s in p-p and d-Au. • Evidence for effects of re-scattering, modified radiation, … ? • Not so far! • But this is just the beginning! • Such measurements w/ one jet @  > 2 would be very interesting!! • But not possible yet

  35. Radiative Effects on (di)Jets • Conclude: large radiative component to di-jet kT • Also see Vitev, Qiu : Phys.Lett.B570:161-170,2003. • Without accounting for radiation initial parton intrinsic kT ~ 2 GeV/c (RMS). • After accounting for radiation ~ 1 GeV/c Analysis of STAR di-hadron  distribution by Boer & Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D69 094025, 2004

  36. Radiative contributions from initial & final state Initial state radiation due to parton shower prior to the hard scattering The development of the initial-state shower must be different in nucleus (?). “Quantum evolution” an important part of CGC Treatment of soft radiation in co-linear vs kT factorization? Hard Scattering – IS/FS Radiation • “Model-independent approach” • Measure di-jet acoplanarity • Better: -jet and -  (hard) processes

  37. kT broadening and evolution of parton distributions will modify  production. If there are mono-jets, are there mono-photons?? -jet angular correlations more sensitive because less broadening from jet. Di-  production even more interesting – kinematics completely determined. Need good photon/0 separation. Direct Photon Production J. Jalilian-Marian, hep-ph/0501222

  38. p-A Collisions @ LHC • Summary of LHC “Yellow Report” on p-A

  39. Physics Motivation / Goals • From DOE LHC Heavy Ion Review (2002)

  40. p-A @ LHC • p-A @ LHC can reach low x at high Q2 • Rates for high-pT processes are enormous • Concerns • No p-p measurements at same s (?). • Centrality selection will require care. • Little particle (baryon) identification away from mid-rapidity Parameters from LHC Yellow Report Rates for pT > 100 GeV/c

  41. Measurable shadowing even at 100 GeV. Modest effects at mid-rapidity (but going away slowly) Low-x Effects @ LHC Q=100 GeV Q=10 GeV Q=2 GeV Armesto, Salgado, Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94:022002 (2005) Frankfurt, Strikman: Shadowing

  42. Di-jet / -jet / - Acoplanarity (2) • d-A measurements @ RHIC limited by • Luminosity and Acceptance • Both of these limitations are removed in (e.g.) ATLAS @ LHC • Isolate initial-state radiation effects (modified in p-A) by comparing: • Di-jets, (isolated)  -jets, (hard) di-photon • Prediction from saturation: • “disappearance” of di-jet signal at pT ~ Qs • But, presumably measurable (calculable?) effects at higher pT?? (precision vs “discovery”)

  43. Example:  from CDF

  44. p-A in ATLAS (CMS) Electromagnetic Calorimeter Muon chambers Hadronic Calorimeter Superconducting Solenoid Inner Detectors Silicon Pixels Silicon Strips Transition Radiation Tracker Superconducting Coils for Toroidal Field for Muon System • p-p detectors @ LHC ideal for studying high-pT physics in p-A collisions. For CMS: EMCal covers ||<5 Had. Cal: ||<5 TOTEM: ||<7

  45. ATLAS Calorimeter System (1) Hadronic Tile Calorimeters Silicon Tracker in Inner Detector EM Accordion Calorimeters Forward LAr Calorimeters Hadronic LAr End Cap Calorimeters

  46. p-A Collisions: Soft “Background” • Some numerology: • @ LHC energies, p-Pb collisions  ~ 7 • Due to coherence (wounded-nucleon scaling)  ~ 7  4 times soft multiplicity (on average) • In p-p @ high-, ~ 25 collisions/bunch crossing • Typical p-Pb collision has 1/6 the soft background of high-  p-p collision. • Conclusion: for high-pT measurements ATLAS p-Pb performance better than p-p. • Beware: this argument neglects rapidity dependence of soft p-Pb/p-p. • Observe: best performance in low XA direction.

  47. Simulated (& Recon) Hijing p-Pb Event

  48. Simulated (& Recon) Hijing p-Pb Event #2 • Jet at forward (actually backward) rapidity

  49. Detecting Forward jets (from Takai)

  50. Event Characteristics dNchg/d ALL Pseudo-rapidity () Fraction of events ATLAS Charged part. multiplicity • Use Hijing to simulate (central) p-Pb events • Apply ideal ATLAS acceptance cuts to particles. • Study what ATLAS “sees” in typical events • e.g. charged multiplicity ATLAS does not measure a large fraction of charged particles 1)  coverage 2) Magnetic bend (minimum pT ~ 0.5)

More Related