Considerations on the suppression of charged particles and in
high energy heavy ion collisions
Abstract
Experimental results related to charged particle and suppression obtained at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven for Au-Au (Cu-Cu) collisions and at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN for Pb-Pb (Xe-Xe) collisions are compiled in terms of the usual nuclear modification factors, and , and of the newly introduced and as a function of and . The and are calculated as the ratios of the spectra in each centrality bin, to the spectrum in proton-proton minimum bias collisions, or to the spectrum in a peripheral bin, respectively, each of them normalised to the corresponding charged particle density. The studies are focused on a range in the region of maximum suppression evidenced in the experiments. The scaling as a function of and is discussed. The core contribution to is presented. The difference in relative to the difference in particle density per unit of rapidity and unit of overlapping area () and the Bjorken energy density times the interaction time () between top RHIC and LHC energies indicate a suppression saturation at LHC energies. Considerations on the missing suppression in high charged particle multiplicity events for pp collisions at 7 TeV are presented. for the same systems and energies shows a linear scaling as a function of . While (1-)/ shows an exponential decrease with , (1-)/ is independent on for 2.1 particles. The trends of and for charged particles as a function of , measured at RHIC in Au-Au collisions and at LHC in Pb-Pb collisions, show a suppression that becomes larger from = 39 GeV up to =200 GeV, followed by a saturation up to the highest energy of =5.02 TeV in Pb-Pb collisions. The dependences of and in the same ranges and for the very central collisions show the same trend. A clear change in the dependence of for the most central collisions as a function of collision energy is evidenced in the region of =62.4 - 130 GeV.
I Introduction
Detailed studies of different observables in heavy ion collisions at RHIC BRAHMS05 ; PHOBOS05 ; STAR05 ; PHENIX05 ; PHENIXB ; STARB support theoretical predictions pioneered more than 40 years ago Coll ; Cha ; Shu ; Chi that at large densities and temperatures of the fireballs produced at these energies, the matter is deconfined into its basic constituents, quarks and gluons. Obviously, such studies are rather difficult given that the produced fireballs are highly non-homogeneous, have a small size and are highly unstable, since their dynamical evolution plays an important role. One of the powerful tools used to diagnose the properties of such a deconfined object is the study of the energy loss of partons traversing the deconfined matter Bjorken82 . Within QCD based models, the energy loss of a parton traversing deconfined matter is due to collisional or radiative processes. Collisional energy loss due to elastic parton collisions is expected to scale linearly with the path length dentbetz . Radiative energy loss occurs via inelastic processes where a hard parton radiates a gluon. Soft interactions of partons with the deconfined medium can also induce gluon radiation dEnterria10 . Radiative energy loss is expected to grow quadratically with the path length Renk07 . There are quite a few theoretical approaches to describe the parton energy loss in expanding deconfined matter Baier97 ; Gyulassy00 ; Baier01 ; Arleo02 ; Muller05 ; Djordjevic08 ; Casalderrey-Solana15 ; Burke14 ; Betz14 ; Arleo18 . However, a proper description of the parton energy loss in the non-equilibrium expanding deconfined matter for the intermediate range remains a challenging task. The predicted suppression at LHC energies turned out to be overestimated, once the experimental information became available. A comprehensive analysis within the CUJET/CIBJET framework recently published Shi19 , indicates, similar to the results of the JET Collaboration Burke14 , a maximum in as a function of temperature around the critical temperature (), followed by a decrease towards temperatures reached at LHC energies. Some considerations on the charged particle and suppression at RHIC and LHC energies are presented in this paper. Section II is a short presentation of the quantities estimated in the Glauber Monte Carlo (MC) model used in the next sections. A review of the charged particle suppression dependence on and , the core-corona effect and the dependence on particle density per unit of rapidity and unit of overlapping area (), a measure of the entropy density and thus of temperature Vogt and the Bjorken energy density times the interaction time () for Cu-Cu and Au-Au at the top RHIC energy and for Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb at LHC energies, are presented in Section III. Section IV is dedicated to similar studies, using instead of in a model independent estimation of suppression, namely , defined later in this section Petrovici17_aip . In Section V, similar considerations for the corresponding relative suppression, and are presented. (1-)/ and (1-)/ dependences as a function of are presented in Section VI. The collision energy dependence of , for charged particles and , for is discussed in Section VII. Conclusions are presented in Section VIII.
II Glauber Monte Carlo estimates


The Glauber MC model Glauber55 ; Franco66 ; Miller07 ; Rybcz2014 was used to estimate in a unitary manner various quantities characteristic to the initial state in A-A collisions: number of participants, number of collisions, number of nucleons undergoing a single collision and the transverse overlapping areas in centrality bins. In a core-corona picture Rybcz2014 , the core quantities were estimated for wounded nucleons suffering more than a single collision. The calculations have been done in the hard sphere wounding prescription Rybcz2014 . For the nuclear density profile of the colliding nuclei, a Woods-Saxon distribution was considered:
(1) |
with a = 0.535 fm, = 6.5 fm for the Au nucleus STAR_dNchdeta , a = 0.546 fm, = 6.62 fm for the Pb nucleus Abelev044909 a = 0.57 fm, = 5.42 fm for the Xe nucleus Loiz and a = 0.596 fm, = 4.2 fm for the Cu nucleus Loiz . Within the hard sphere approach, the nucleons are considered to collide if the relative transverse distance . The nucleon - nucleon inelastic cross section, , at a given collision energy, was taken as specified in Refs. STAR_dNchdeta ; Abelev044909 ; XeXecent ; PbPb_502_dNchdeta . The centrality dependence of the overlapping area, is considered to be proportional to the quantity . , are the variances, and is the co-variance of the participant distributions in the transverse plane, per event Alver08 . They were averaged over many events. The centrality dependent values were rescaled in such a way as to equalize the geometrical area (calculated as in Petrovici18 ; PetAIP ) and in the case of the complete overlap of the nuclei (b = 0 fm). After generating a large number of events for the minimum bias (MB) collisions, they were sorted in centrality classes according to the impact parameter distribution. Calculations of the quantities of interest have been done in each centrality class. The results of the calculations for various systems and energies were presented in Refs. Petrovici18 ; PetAIP and Table I of this paper. The obtained number of participants and number of collisions are in good agreement, within the error bars, with the same quantities listed in different experimental publications. In Figure 1, the average number of participating nucleons () Alver06 ; STAR_AuAu_200 ; XeXe_data ; PbPb_502_dNchdeta ; Petrovici18 as a function of centrality obtained within the Glauber MC approach is shown. As can be seen, the difference in at a given centrality, for colliding systems with different sizes and incident energies, is increasing from peripheral towards central collisions. Figure 2 shows the average number of nucleons undergoing single collisions relative to the average number of participating nucleons (). As expected, has large values at low , the system size and collision energy dependence being rather small. With increasing towards very central collisions, although the percentage of nucleons undergoing single collisions decreases, the difference between the various systems becomes significant.
System | Cen. | ) | |||
(GeV) | (%) | () | () | ||
Cu-Cu | 200 | 0-10 | 0.810.00 | 67.90.5 | 51.80.4 |
10-30 | 0.690.00 | 53.40.4 | 36.10.3 | ||
30-50 | 0.550.00 | 38.30.3 | 23.30.2 | ||
50-70 | 0.380.01 | 24.70.2 | 13.20.1 | ||
Xe-Xe | 5440 | 0-5 | 0.930.00 | 124.10.6 | 105.30.5 |
5-10 | 0.890.00 | 114.90.6 | 91.30.5 | ||
10-20 | 0.840.00 | 100.60.5 | 74.90.4 | ||
20-30 | 0.780.00 | 83.70.5 | 57.90.3 | ||
30-40 | 0.720.00 | 69.30.4 | 44.70.2 | ||
40-50 | 0.650.00 | 57.10.3 | 34.20.2 | ||
50-60 | 0.570.00 | 45.90.3 | 25.50.1 | ||
60-70 | 0.470.01 | 35.40.2 | 18.20.1 | ||
70-80 | 0.360.01 | 24.80.2 | 10.90.1 |

III ( ) : dependence
Usually, the comparisons among different systems and different collision energies in terms of the nuclear modification factor, , are done as a function of collision centrality. is defined as:
(2) |
where the transverse momentum distribution of a certain particle measured in A-A collisions for a given centrality (cen) is divided by the pp MB distribution of that particle at the same energy, multiplied by the number of binary collisions calculated based on the Glauber MC model.

Because of the dependence on centrality in Figure 1, a study of the suppression phenomena in relativistic heavy ion collisions as a function of system size and collision energy is better done in terms of , instead of centrality. At =200 GeV, the same values of charged particle as a function of for different bins in , for two very different colliding symmetric systems Au-Au Adler04 and Cu-Cu Alver06 , were evidenced. A similar scaling was also observed for a lower collision energy, i.e. =62.4 GeV Back05 . Such a dependence was studied for pions and protons, for 58 GeV/c and 56 GeV/c respectively, in Cu-Cu and Au-Au collisions at =200 GeV, by the STAR Collaboration Abelev10 , where a good scaling of as a function of for the two systems was seen. The PHENIX Collaboration has shown that in Au-Au collisions at =62.4 GeV and 200 GeV, the of for 6 GeV/c has the same value as a function of Adare12 . At the LHC energies, the CMS Collaboration presented a similar scaling for Xe-Xe at =5.44 TeV and Pb-Pb at =5.02 TeV Sirunyan18 with the remark that the for Xe-Xe was obtained using the spectrum from MB pp collisions at =5.02 TeV. Aside from Cu-Cu at =200 GeV, where the spectra were obtained for the 0.2 1.4 pseudorapidity range, all the other results were obtained for a symmetric cut relative to =0.
Suppression studies at LHC energies up to very large values Chatrchyan12 ; Abelev13 ; Aad15 , for charged particles, evidence a maximum suppression in the 5-8 GeV/c range, for a given centrality. While the absolute value of the maximum suppression depends on centrality, its position is in the same region of . Although at RHIC energies the measured range is much smaller than the region where the starts to increase, based on the larger range in for Adare12 , one could conclude that the maximum suppression for different centralities is in the same range of , i.e. 5-8 GeV/c. This is the main reason to focus the present considerations on the suppression phenomena in this range.
Using the latest results obtained at RHIC for Cu-Cu and Au-Au collisions at =200 GeV Alver06 ; STAR_AuAu_200 ; Adler04 , at LHC for Xe-Xe at =5.44 TeV XeXe_data and Pb-Pb at =2.76 and 5.02 TeV PbPb_Raa , we obtained the mean values of , averaged over the GeV/c region, presented in Figure 4a. scales as a function of at RHIC (=200 GeV) and LHC energies, separately, as it was shown in the above mentioned papers. Within the error bars, a small difference, i.e. a slightly larger suppression is observed for central Cu-Cu and Xe-Xe collisions relative to Au-Au and Pb-Pb respectively, at the same . The highlighted areas represent the systematic uncertainties, while the error bars are the statistical uncertainties, for the cases where they have been reported separately (Pb-Pb at =2.76 and 5.02 TeV, Xe-Xe at =5.44 TeV, Au-Au (PHENIX) and Cu-Cu at =200 GeV), while in the case of Au-Au (STAR) the error bars represent the square root of statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Another aspect worth being considered is the so called core-corona effect Becattini04 ; Bozek05 ; Werner07 ; Steinheimer11 ; Becattini08 ; Becattini09 ; Aichelin09 ; Aichelin10_2 ; Bozek09 ; Schreiber12 ; Gemard14 ; Petrovici17 on the suppression estimate. The contribution to the spectra in A-A collisions from a nucleon suffering a single collision is similar with the spectra from pp MB collisions at the same energy. Therefore, one should first correct the experimental spectra of A-A collisions with the contribution coming from single binary collisions (corona) in order to obtain the spectra of the core:
(3) |
where . The suppression due to the core of the fireball, :
(4) |
where
(5) |
is presented in Figure 4b as a function of . In the simple image of a net core-corona separation, the figure shows the core contribution extracted from the experimental data for the different centrality classes.

The suppression is increased in peripheral collisions by 10-20% and the values for the most central Cu-Cu and Xe-Xe collisions are the same as for Au-Au and Pb-Pb collisions, respectively, for the same . The suppression for Cu-Cu and Au-Au is the same at the same collision energy =200 GeV). At the LHC energies, the suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at =2.76 TeV is the same as at =5.02 TeV, as well as for Xe-Xe at =5.44 TeV, where the latter energies are almost twice as high. The small deviation evidenced in Xe-Xe collisions at low values of could be due to the way in which the correlation between centrality and is estimated in the standard Glauber MC approach Loizides17 . For consistency reasons, for Au-Au collisions ( = 200 GeV) we have used both the data published by STAR and PHENIX Collaborations. As one can observe in Figure 4a, there is very good agreement between these two datasets. In order to avoid overloaded figures as much as possible, from now on only the dataset measured by the STAR Collaboration will be used.


The dependence of the suppression has the advantage that at a given , the fireball transverse area is the same for the colliding systems and collision energies in question glauber_b , with small deviations observed at very central collisions in Cu-Cu and Xe-Xe relative to Au-Au and Pb-Pb Petrovici18 , where the fireball shapes are closer to a circular geometry, qualitatively represented in Figure 5. At LHC energies, with a slight change in the offset (10 ) the linear dependence of on has the same slope as at the RHIC energy (Figure 3). As it is known, all theoretical models predict a greater suppression with increasing path length and energy density or temperature of the deconfined medium traversed by a parton Baier97 ; Gyulassy00 ; Baier01 ; Arleo02 ; Muller05 ; Djordjevic08 ; Casalderrey-Solana15 ; Burke14 ; Betz14 ; Arleo18 . In Figure 6, the suppression in terms of (1-) in the 58 GeV/c region for the colliding systems and energies under consideration, compared with the particle density per unit of rapidity and unit of overlapping area (), which is a measure of the entropy density and thus of the temperature Vogt , as a function of , is represented. The values were estimated as in Petrovici18 ; PetAIP .

In the case of Cu-Cu and Au-Au at =200 GeV, for the same average number of participants and , the suppression has the same value, increasing with and with the size of the overlapping area. Since the suppression in central Cu-Cu collisions is the same as in Au-Au collisions at the corresponding , it appears that the fireball shape plays a minor role, for the same size of the overlapping area, on the azimuthally averaged values. For =200, the differences in for Pb-Pb at =2.76, 5.02 TeV and for Xe-Xe at =5.44 TeV, relative to Au-Au at =200 GeV, are 5.25, 6.771 and 7.891 (particles/) while the differences in (1-) are 0.100.03, 0.110.03 and 0.110.03. This suggests a suppression saturation at LHC energies. For central Au-Au collisions, i.e. =350, the difference in between Pb-Pb at =2.76 TeV and Au-Au at =200 GeV is 71 (particles/) while the difference in (1-) is 0.080.03.
Using the phenomenological ”abc” parton energy loss approach Xu , where the fractional energy loss is:
(6) |
and the approximation from Djordjevic19 , one obtains:
(7) |
where L is the average path length and T is the average temperature. With the assumption that , the entropy density and Vogt , one could estimate for three values of the parameters a and b, used by different models in order to reproduce the experimental results related to the suppression: i) a=1, b=2; ii) a=1, b=1 Djordjevic19 ; zig20 ; iii) a=3, b=2 Xu . Using the experimental values of (1-) for Au-Au at =200 GeV and Pb-Pb at =2.76 TeV at =350, corresponding to the most central collisions for Au-Au at =200 GeV, one obtains: i) = 0.86(); ii) = 0.88() and iii) = 0.58( 0.04). Although theoretically not compelling, as it was mentioned in Ref. Betz14 , we used ansatz iii) based on their results on relative success and failure of different models (Table 2 and 3 in the same paper). Previous studies Betz13 ; Betz12 ; Betz11 have shown that the running coupling alters the jet-energy dependence of energy loss and is approximatively independent on E. Obviously, the hydrodynamic expansion of the deconfined matter traversed by the parton plays a role in the estimated final suppression. Using the scaling of the average transverse flow velocity, , reported in Ref. Petrovici18 , for the geometrical scaling variable corresponding to the particle densities used before for the estimation, a ratio 1.090.08 is obtained. This could be one of the reasons leading to lower values of the jet-medium coupling in Pb-Pb central collision at =2.76 TeV energy relative to Au-Au central collision at =200 GeV. In Table II T, and for the 0-5% collision centrality for Au-Au at =39 GeV and 200 GeV and for Pb-Pb at =2.76 TeV are listed. A comparison between 39 GeV and 200 GeV for Au-Au collisions shows an increase of 39.7% relative to =39 GeV in the suppression, while the increase in and is 20.3% and 20.4%, respectively. The increase in the suppression from =200 GeV (Au-Au) to =2.76 TeV is 7.4% relative to =200 GeV, while the increase in and is 24.2% and 10.2%, respectively. In this case, a 4 times smaller difference in the suppression, for a larger difference in and a smaller difference in the expansion velocity, can be observed.
System | Cen. | ||||
(GeV) | (%) | ||||
Au-Au | 39 | 0-5 | 1.720.03 | 0.490.04 | 0.580.02 |
Au-Au | 200 | 0-5 | 2.070.03 | 0.590.05 | 0.810.06 |
Pb-Pb | 2760 | 0-5 | 2.570.04 | 0.650.06 | 0.870.08 |
This supports the assumption that the main contribution to the observed evolution of as a function of collision energy, i.e. a strong increase followed by a weakening dependence, is due to the energy density (temperature) dependence of the parton energy loss in the deconfined medium. In Figure 7, the relative differences between the suppression in Pb-Pb at =5.02 TeV and the suppression in Au-Au and Cu-Cu collisions at =200 GeV, Pb-Pb collisions at =2.76 TeV and Xe-Xe collisions at =5.44 TeV are shown. The corresponding differences in particle density per unit of rapidity and unit of overlapping area, (Figure 7a) and Bjorken energy density times the interaction time, (Figure 7b) are also shown with the corresponding scales on the right side of the figures.
The Bjorken energy density times the interaction time is estimated based on Bjorken82_2 :
(8) |
where is the total transverse energy and represents the overlapping area of the colliding nuclei. The total transverse energy per unit of rapidity can be estimated as follows:
-
•
RHIC =200 GeV:
(9) -
•
LHC energies:
(10)
The input data used in the estimation of the Bjorken energy density times the interaction time are reported in Petrovici18 ; STAR_dNchdeta ; PbPb_276_dNchdeta ; Jacazio17 ; Adams07 ; Abelev13_2 ; Albuquerque18 ; Brahms16 ; Bellini19 and Table I.
Within the error bars, the suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at =2.76 TeV is the same with the one corresponding to =5.02 TeV for all values of , although the difference in and in increases from 0.880.33 particles/ to 1.950.54 particles/ and from 0.710.32 GeV/() to 2.440.81 GeV/(), respectively, from the low (=50) to the highest value of (=350). The difference between the suppression in Pb-Pb at =5.02 TeV and Au-Au at =200 GeV decreases from 0.270.25 to 0.08 with , while the differences in and increase from 2.630.29 particles/ and 2.130.28 GeV/() to 8.90.43 particles/ and 8.20.8 GeV/(), respectively.



[h!]
An alternative representation of could be done as a function of the average charged particle density per unit of pseudorapidity XeXe_data . The experimental data for heavy ion collisions are taken from XeXe_data ; STAR_dNchdeta ; BES_CuCu_dNchdeta ; PbPb_502_dNchdeta ; PbPb_276_dNchdeta . The as a function of is presented in Figure 8a for the same systems and collision energies as in Figure 4. In such a representation, all systems at all energies scale as a function of . The same representation in terms of and (Figure 8b) shows a larger deviation between RHIC and LHC energies for 200. Relative to the dependence, the difference in the shapes of the overlapping areas of different systems for a given is larger, as it can be seen in Figure 9. If we look at the dependence of or respectively as a function of charged particle density (Figure 10a and Figure 10b), a difference between the collision energies which increases with is seen.
Therefore, with several contributions playing a role in the observed scaling in , it is rather difficult to unravel the importance of each one of them. The difference between the two representations is explained by the correlation between and , presented in Figure 11. While the overlapping area depends little on the system size and collision energy for a given Petrovici18 , combines the contribution of both collision energy and system size.
IV Why ?
, as a measure of the suppression in heavy ion collisions, is based on the estimate of the number of binary collisions within the Glauber MC approach using straight trajectories as a hypothesis. The dependence on the collision energy is introduced by the nucleon-nucleon cross section and the oversimplified assumption that every nucleon-nucleon collision takes place at the same energy, , and consequently the same cross section, . In Figure 12, the correlation between the number of binary collisions and estimated within the standard Glauber MC approach is represented.
An alternative approach, where the energy and change after each collision Seryakov16 , has shown that in Pb-Pb collisions at =2.76 TeV, the average number of binary collisions is significantly lower than the values estimated by the standard Glauber model with the difference increasing towards central collisions. The difference in is negligible at peripheral and central collisions. For mid-central collisions it is about 18%.
has to be unity if only single collisions take place. A very good correlation between estimated within the standard Glauber model and experimental values of is evidenced in Figure 13. However, their ratio as a function of shows an increase from close to 1 for the lowest values of , up to 150, followed by a tendency towards a saturation at 3.5 for the largest values (Figure 14). All systems at all investigated energies overlap in this representation. In the case of pp collisions, corresponding to the selection of inelastic collisions and the parametrisation given in ALICE17 had been used.




Based on these, we will also analyse the model independent quantity, namely , obtained as a ratio of the spectra in A-A collisions to the one in MB pp collisions at the same energy, with each of them normalised to the corresponding charged particle densities, for all the available centralities in A-A collisions (Eq.(11)). This observable was used in a previous paper for comparing the behaviour of spectra in pp, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions as a function of charged particle multiplicity and centrality, respectively Petrovici17_aip .
(11) |
In Figure 15, as a function of for the systems discussed in the previous section is presented. The system size scaling for each energy domain, i.e. the highest energy at RHIC and LHC energies remains. has a close to linear dependence as a function of and at larger values of the average number of participating nucleons, the suppression is reduced compared to . As it is observed in Figure 16, the scaling of has not the same quality as as a function of (see Figure 8a) for the two collision energy domains. However, the scaling at LHC energies remains, a close to linear dependence being evidenced in this representation as well. The same considerations as in Section III can be used in order to estimate the expected suppression, (1-), for pp collisions at =7 TeV and very high charged particle multiplicity (HM) events. The geometrical scaling Petrovici18 shows that for the highest charged particle multiplicity in pp collisions at =7 TeV, in the case of =1, =3.30.1 particles, in pp and Pb-Pb at =2.76 TeV is the same. Therefore, the contribution of the hydrodynamic expansion to the suppression should play a similar role. For this value of , (=1)=7.430.48 and =700.4 (corresponding to =125). Assuming the same jet-medium coupling, (1-)/(1-) /=0.11 0.01. This could explain why in pp collisions at LHC, in high charged particle multiplicity events, in the limit of current experimental uncertainties, no suppression was observed, although similarities to Pb-Pb collisions for other observables were evidenced.

V Relative suppression in terms of
For energies where the spectra in pp collisions were not measured, the suppression was studied in terms of , i.e. the ratio of charged particle spectra at a given centrality to the spectrum in peripheral collisions, each of them divided by the corresponding average number of the binary collisions:
(12) |
for each centrality in A-A collisions.

For a better comparison of the values as a function of , the peripheral collision of reference was chosen to be the same for all systems and all energies, i.e =30. The estimated in this way is represented in Figure 17 for the same systems and energies. As in the case of , due to the same reasons, using experimental data, we estimated the :
(13) |

The suppression as a function of (Figure 18) is the same at all values of for all the heavy systems, Au-Au, Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb, although the difference in the collision energies is 14-27 times higher at LHC than at RHIC and between the LHC energies is a factor of 2. The linear dependence as a function of follows the linear dependence observed in .
VI (1-)/ and (1-)/ dependence on
Based on Eq. (7) and ansatz (iii) from Section III and taking , , which is a rough estimate of the jet-coupling constant, turns out to be proportional to (1-)/ .
A qualitative temperature dependence of can be obtained from experimental data, as
.


As can be seen in Figure 19, (1-)/ shows an exponential decrease as a function of . The hatched line is the result of the fit with the following expression:
(14) |
Such a temperature dependence of the jet-medium coupling was considered in Ref.Betz14 in order to reproduce the nuclear modification factors at RHIC and LHC energies. A similar representation for instead of is presented in Figure 20. In this case, (1-)/ is constant as a function of , for 2.1 particles/fm2/3, independent on the size of the colliding systems and collision energy. An impact parameter independence of the jet quenching parameter was claimed in a series of theoretical estimates Andres ; Andres2 ; Xie .
VII The dependence of , , ,
As it is well known, within the Beam Energy Scan (BES) program at RHIC, valuable data were obtained relative to the behaviour of different observables in Au-Au collisions, starting from = 7.7 GeV, up to 39 GeV. Since the spectra for charged particles in pp collisions at these energies were not measured, the STAR Collaboration studied the dependence of [(0-5%)/(60-80%)] for different collision energies, for Au-Au collisions Sangaline12 . In order to include as much as possible the lower energies, where the published data are in a lower range, we had to change the range from 58 GeV/c, used in previous sections, to 46 GeV/c, for the study of the charged particle suppression dependence on the collision energy. These results, together with the values obtained in Pb-Pb collisions at =2.76 and 5.02 TeV, for the most central collisions, are presented in Figure 21a. Following the arguments from the previous section, as a function of the collision energy is presented in Figure 21b. In both plots is evidenced a decrease of or from = 19.6 GeV up to = 200 GeV, while the relative ratios of particle densities per unit of rapidity and unit of overlapping area are constant, within the error bars. Beyond the RHIC energies, and remain constant. Since for charged particles at lower RHIC energies are not reported, in order to confirm the above observations, we used the of published by the PHENIX collaboration at =39, 62.4 and 200 GeV Adare08 ; Adare12 and by the ALICE Collaboration ALICE14 ; Sekihata18 at LHC energies.


In order to have an estimate on corresponding to 0-10% centrality for the collision energies where it was not published, we applied the procedure described bellow. The dependence of (Figure 21a) was fit with the following empirical expression:
(15) |
with a, b, and c as free parameters, the result being presented in Figure 22a. A similar expression was used in order to fit the measured experimental data of the - dependence (Figure 22b - full symbols), leaving the parameters free. The result was used for estimating at the missing collision energies, i.e. 19.6, 27 and 130 GeV (Figure 22b - open symbols). Measured, interpolated and extrapolated values as a function of are presented in Figure 23, for both ranges used in this paper, namely 4-6 GeV/c (open symbols) and 5-8 GeV/c (full symbols).

The dependence as a function of is qualitatively similar with the one evidenced for corresponding to charged particles presented in Figure 21a. The suppression starts around =27 GeV, becomes more significant up to the top RHIC energy and remains constant up to the LHC energies. The ratios relative to as a function of collision energy are presented in Figure 24, namely: / (Figure 24a) and / (Figure 24b).

These ratios show a maximum around the top RHIC energies (in the region of = 62.4 - 130 GeV), decreasing towards LHC energies, in qualitative agreement with theoretical predictions Liao09 ; Burke14 ; Shi19 . To what extent such a trend is due to a transition from a magnetic plasma of light monopoles near the critical temperature region Liao09 to a deconfined matter dominated by quarks and gluons Shi19 remains an open question. However, the trends in the experimental data suggest a change in the properties of the deconfined matter from RHIC to LHC energies.
VIII Conclusions
The present paper is mainly based on published experimental data obtained at RHIC and LHC. The motivation of this was to study possible scaling or distinctive features between the two energy regimes. Without claiming precise calculations that are extremely laborious, we tried to rely mainly on experimental considerations. Based on the experimental results obtained at RHIC for Au-Au, Cu-Cu and at LHC for Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe collisions, a detailed analysis of the charged particle suppression in the region of transverse momentum corresponding to the maximum suppression is presented.
In order to draw conclusions independent of estimates of the number of binary collisions used in the definitions of and , we define the quantities and in which the ratios of spectra are normalised to charged particle density () before they are then divided by the relevant pp or peripheral spectra, again normalised by charged particle density in pp or peripheral collision.
While scales as a function of for the top RHIC and all LHC energies, it scales separately as a function of for RHIC and LHC energies, for all the corresponding measured colliding systems. However, given that depends on the collision energy and on the overlapping area of the colliding systems, their relative contribution to suppression is rather difficult to unravel. This is the main reason why the considerations on the suppression phenomena as a function of collision geometry and collision energy are mainly based on the dependence.
The influence of the corona contribution on the experimental is presented. As expected, the main corona contribution is at low values of where the core suppression relative to the experimental value is larger.
Based on (1-) and dependences on , one could conclude that a saturation of suppression at LHC energies takes place. At =350, corresponding to the most central Au-Au collisions at =200 GeV, if one considers the parton energy loss proportional with the squared path length and with the particle density per unit of rapidity and unit of overlapping area, the proportionality factor is approximately two times lower at LHC than at RHIC. The difference in the hydrodynamic expansion extracted from the scaling as a function of cannot explain this difference.
Such considerations, applied to the highest charged particle multiplicity measured in pp collisions at 7 TeV could explain why no suppression is evidenced in such events, in the limit of current experimental uncertainties, while there are similarities to Pb-Pb with respect to other observables. as a function of shows similar separate scaling for RHIC and LHC energies, with a linear dependence being evidenced. shows a very good scaling as a function of for the heavy systems at all collision energies.
The ratio (1-)/ shows an exponential decrease with
while (1-)/ is independent on for 2.1 particles/fm2/3, the value being the same for all the heavy systems at all the collision energies, showing the possible dependence of the jet-medium coupling as a function of temperature.
For the most central collisions, , for charged particles and , for 46 GeV/c and 58 GeV/c, measured at RHIC in Au-Au collisions and at LHC in Pb-Pb collisions, evidence, as a function of the collision energy, an increase of the suppression from = 39 GeV up to 200 GeV, followed by a saturation up to the highest energy, =5.02 TeV for Pb-Pb collisions. / and / for the 0-10% centrality evidence a maximum around the largest RHIC energies, in qualitative agreement with models predictions. To what extent this pattern is a signature of a transition in the deconfined matter properties from the top RHIC energy to LHC energies has to be further confirmed by theoretical models.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was carried out under the contracts sponsored by the Ministry of Education and Research: RONIPALICE-04/10.03.2020 (via IFA Coordinating Agency) and PN-19 06 01 03.
References
- (1) I.C. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS Collaboration). Nucl.Phys.A, 757:1, 2005.
- (2) B.B. Back et al. (PHOBOS Collaboration). Nucl.Phys.A, 757:28, 2005.
- (3) J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration). Nucl.Phys.A, 757:102, 2005.
- (4) K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration). Nucl.Phys.A, 757:184, 2005.
- (5) J.T. Mitchell et al. (PHENIX Collaboration). Nucl.Phys.A, 904-905:903c, 2013.
- (6) D. McDonald et al. (STAR Collaboration). Eur.Phys.J.Web of Conferences, 95:01009, 2015.
- (7) J.C. Collins and M.J. Perry. Phys.Rev.Lett, 34:1353, 1975.
- (8) G.F. Chapline and A.K. Kerman. MIT report CTP-695, 1978.
- (9) E.V. Shuryak. Phys.Lett.B, 78:150, 1978.
- (10) S.A. Chin. Phys.Lett.B, 78:552, 1978.
- (11) J.D. Bjorken. FERMILAB-PUB-82-059-THY, 1982.
- (12) D. d’Enterria and B. Betz. Lecture Notes in Physics, 785:285, 2010.
- (13) D. d’Enterria. Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics, Landolt-Börnstein - Group I Elementary Particles, Nuclei and Atoms, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-642-01538-0, 23:471, 2010.
- (14) T. Renk. Phys.Rev.C, 76:064905, 2007.
- (15) R. Baier et al. Nucl.Phys.B, 483:291, 1997.
- (16) M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev. Nucl.Phys.B, 571:197, 2000.
- (17) R. Baier et al. J. High Energ. Phys., 0109:033, 2001.
- (18) F. Arleo. J. High Energ. Phys., 11:044, 2002.
- (19) B. Müller and K. Rajagopal. Eur.Phys.J., C43:15, 2005.
- (20) M. Djordjevic and U.W. Heinz. Phys.Rev.Lett., 101:022302, 2008.
- (21) J. Casalderrey-Solana et al. J. High Energ. Phys., 09:175, 2015.
- (22) K.M. Burke et al. (JET Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 90:014909, 2014.
- (23) B. Betz and M. Gyulassy. J. High Energ. Phys., 08:090, 2014.
- (24) F. Arleo and G. Falmagne. PoS(HardProbes2018), page 075, 2018.
- (25) S. Shi, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy. Chinese Phys. C, 43:044101, 2019.
- (26) Ramona Vogt. Ultrarelativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions, Elsevier Science:ISBN 978–0–444–52196–5, 2007.
- (27) M. Petrovici et al. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1852:050003, 2017.
- (28) R.J. Glauber. Phys. Rev., 100:242, 1955.
- (29) V. Franco and R.J. Glauber. Phys. Rev., 142:119, 1966.
- (30) M.L. Miller et al. Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci., 57:205, 2007.
- (31) M. Rybczynski et al. Comput. Phys. Commun., 185:1759, 2014.
- (32) B.I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 79:034909, 2009.
- (33) B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 88:044910, 2013.
- (34) C. Loizides et al. arXiv:1408.2549v9[nucl-ex], 2019.
- (35) S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Lett.B, 788:166, 2019.
- (36) J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Rev.Lett., 116:222302, 2016.
- (37) B. Alver et al. Phys.Rev.C, 77:014906, 2008.
- (38) M. Petrovici et al. Phys.Rev.C, 98:024904, 2018.
- (39) M. Petrovici et al. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2076:040001, 2019.
- (40) B. Alver et al. (PHOBOS Collaboration). Phys.Rev.Lett., 96:212301, 2006.
- (41) J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration). Phys.Rev.Lett., 91:172302, 2003.
- (42) S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Lett.B, 790:35, 2019.
- (43) J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 94:034903, 2016.
- (44) S.S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 69:034910, 2004.
- (45) B.B. Back et al. Phys.Rev.Lett., 94:082304, 2005.
- (46) B.I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 81:054907, 2010.
- (47) A.Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration). Phys.Rev.Lett., 109:152301, 2012.
- (48) A.M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration). J. High Energ. Phys., 10:138, 2018.
- (49) S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration). Eur.Phys.J., C72:1945, 2012.
- (50) B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Lett.B, 720:52, 2013.
- (51) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration). J. High Energ. Phys., 09:050, 2015.
- (52) S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration). J. High Energ. Phys., 1811:013, 2018.
- (53) F. Becattini et al. Phys.Rev.C, 69:024905, 2004.
- (54) P. Bozek. Acta Phys. Pol., B36:3071, 2005.
- (55) K. Werner. Phys.Rev.Lett., 98:152301, 2007.
- (56) J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher. Phys.Rev.C, 84:024905, 2011.
- (57) F. Becattini and J. Manninen. J.Phys.G, 35:104013, 2008.
- (58) F. Becattini and J. Manninen. Phys.Lett.B, 673:19, 2009.
- (59) J. Aichelin and K. Werner. Phys.Rev.C, 79:064907, 2009.
- (60) J. Aichelin and K. Werner. Phys.Rev.C, 82:034906, 2010.
- (61) P. Bozek. Phys.Rev.C, 79:054901, 2009.
- (62) K. Werner C. Schreiber and J. Aichelin. Phys. Atom. Nucl., 75:640, 2012.
- (63) M. Gemard and J. Aichelin. Astron. Nachr., 335:660, 2014.
- (64) M. Petrovici et al. Phys.Rev.C, 96:014908, 2017.
- (65) C. Loizides and A. Morsch. Phys.Lett.B, 773:408, 2017.
- (66) C. Loizides et al. Phys.Rev.C, 97:054910, 2018.
- (67) M. Gyulassy J. Xu, A. Buzzatti. JHEP, 08:063, 2014.
- (68) M. Djordjevic et al. Phys.Rev.C, 99:061902, 2019.
- (69) D. Zigic et al. Nucl.Phys.A, 00:1, 2020.
- (70) B.Betz and M.Gyulassy. arXiv:, 1305.6458[nucl-th], 2013.
- (71) B.Betz and M.Gyulassy. Phys.Rev.C, 86:024903, 2012.
- (72) B.Betz and M.Gyulassy. Phys.Rev.C, 84:024913, 2011.
- (73) A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration). Phys.Rev.Lett., 101:232301, 2008.
- (74) B. Abelev et. (ALICE Collaboration). Eur.Phys.J., C74:3108, 2014.
- (75) J.D. Bjorken. Phys.Rev.D, 27:140, 1982.
- (76) B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 88:044909, 2013.
- (77) N. Jacazio (ALICE Collaboration). Nucl.Phys.A, 967:421, 2017.
- (78) J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration). Phys.Rev.Lett., 98:062301, 2007.
- (79) B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Phys.Rev.Lett., 111:222301, 2013.
- (80) D.S. de Albuquerque (ALICE Collaboration). Quark Matter 2018, 13-19 May 2018.
- (81) I.C. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 94:014907, 2016.
- (82) F. Bellini (ALICE Collaboration). Nucl.Phys.A, 982:427, 2019.
- (83) A. Adare et al. (STAR Collaboration). Phys.Rev.C, 93:024901, 2016.
- (84) A. Seryakov and G. Feofilov. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1701:070001, 2016.
- (85) J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration). Eur.Phys.J., C77:33, 2017.
- (86) C. Andres et al. Eur.Phys.J., C76:475, 2016.
- (87) C. Andres et al. arXiv:1705.01493[nucl-th], 2017.
- (88) M. Xie et al. Eur.Phys.J., C79:589, 2019.
- (89) E. Sangaline et al. (STAR Collaboration). Quark Matter 2012 Conference Proceedings, 2012.
- (90) D. Sekihata (for the ALICE Collaboration). Quark Matter 2018, 13-19 May 2018.
- (91) J. Liao and E. Shuryak. Phys.Rev.Lett., 102:202302, 2009.