arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 25 Apr 2018

Transcription

1 HEAVY MESONS PHOTOPRODUCTION IN PERIPHERAL COLLISIONS M. B. GAY DUCATI AND S. MARTINS High Energy Physics Phenomenology Group, GFPAE IF-UFRGS Caixa Postal 15051, CEP , Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 25 Apr 2018 Abstract The exclusive photoproduction of the heavy vector mesons ψ s and Y s is investigated in peripheral lead-lead collisions for the energies available at the LHC, s = 2.76 TeV and s = 5.02 TeV. In order to evaluate the robustness of the light-cone color dipole formalism, previously tested in the ultraperipheral regime. It was calculated the rapidity distribution as well as the nuclear modification factor (R ) for the three centrality classes: 30%-50%, 50%-70% and 70%-90%. The transition from ultraperipheral to peripheral regime was carried out sophisticating the photon flux description and the photonuclear cross section, taking into account the effective interaction area. In our calculations, three scenarios were considered: (scenario 1) the direct application of the usual photon flux and of the photonuclear cross section without any relevant change in relation to the UPCs, (scenario 2) the application of an effective photon flux keeping the photonuclear cross section unchanged and (scenario 3) where it was also considered an effective photonuclear cross section. The results obtained from the three scenarios were compared with the ALICE measurements (only J/ψ at the moment), showing a better agreement with the data in the more complete approach (scenario 3), mainly in the more central regions (30%-50% and 50%-70%) where the incertainty is smaller. PACS numbers: Bx; Hb I. INTRODUCTION One of the main contributions of HERA was the discovery that diffractive events, characterized by large rapidity gaps (η > 4) with absence of hadronic activity, where one, or both hadrons emerge intact in the final 1 state, represents a relevant fraction of deep inelastic scattering [1]. Soft diffraction, for example, contributes with ( 20%) of the total inelastic cross section proton-proton and therefore must be taken into account in order to keep the background of many processes in the LHC [2] under control. On the other

2 hand, hard diffractive processes, responsible for the production of the states with high mass, or high p T (ex. Q Q, jets, W, Z), can be calculated from perturbative QCD. The presence of a hard scale allows us to obtain more information about the Diffractive (or Generalized) Particle Distribution Functions, which describe not only the particle density, but also the correlation between them [3]. In addition, the perturbative treatment also opens a way to test new ideas about the mechanism of exchange of two or more gluons in a singlet color state (Pomeron IP). An interesting type of diffractive process is the exclusive photoproduction of the vector mesons, where the collision between two hadrons produces a vector meson keeping the initial hadrons intact. This mechanism is dominant in the ultraperipheral regime, in which the cross section can be divided into two components: a quasi-real photon flux, created from one of the hadrons incoming, and the cross section photoproduction, responsible for characterizing the interaction of the photons with the target-hadron. Exclusive photoproduction has been investigated in several works [4 10]. In one of our last contributions to the subject [4], we calculated the rapidity distribution for the production of Y s states in Pb-Pb collisions at energies s = 2.76 TeV and s = 5.02 TeV. In that case, the light cone colour dipole formalism was used [11], which includes the partonic saturation and the nuclear shadowing effects [12 15]. This time, we are interested in testing the robusteness of the dipole colour formalism in the peripheral regime. In this region, the ALICE collaboration measured an excess in the J/ψ production for forward rapidity in small p T [16], which could be the product of exclusive photoproduction. On the other hand, there are very few studies dealing with this production mechanism in the peripheral collisions regime (in particular, b 2R A ). In [17], for example, this issue is treated by modifying one of the components of the cross section, the photon flux. However, no change is made to the photoproduction cross section in relation to the ultraperipheral case. In our first paper related to the subject [18], we calculated the rapidity distribution of the J/ψ from an effective photon flux constructed in terms of the usual photon flux following a similar (but not the same) procedure as that performed in [17]. However, we applied an effective interaction area dependent of the b, instead of a constant value πr 2 A adopted in [17]. Now, we refine our previous calculations and applied a relevant modification also in the photoproduction cross section following the geometrical formalism adopted in the construction of the effective photon flux. In relation to the last work, we included a new centrality class 2

3 (30% -50%) as well as a new dipole model (CGC model). We also expanded the number of states under analysis, calculating the rapidity distribution for the mesons ψ(2s) and Y (1S, 2S, 3S). The main objective of this work is to evaluate the behavior of the nuclear modification factor in three different approaches: (scenario 1) direct application of the usual photon flux and of the photonuclear cross section without any modification in relation to UPCs,(scenario 2) alter only in the photon flux and (scenario 3) modify in the photon flux and in the photonuclear cross section. FIG. 1: R for J/ψ production as a function of the average number of participating nucleons N part. Figure extracted from [16]. To estimate the R values, it was adopted the expression developed in [19], II. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH The ALICE collaboration measured the peripheral hadroproduction of the J/ψ in Pb- Pb collisions, revealing an excess in the production of this meson in the small transverse momentum (p T < 0.3 GeV/c) at s = 2.76 TeV [16]. This excess was quantified by a nuclear modification factor, R, which reaches the values 7 (2) in the centrality classes 70%- 90% (50%-70%) within the rapidity range 2.5 < y < 4.0, Fig. 1. = N J/ψ BR J/ψ l + l N events (A ε) J/ψ T σpp hj/ψ R hj/ψ where, N J/ψ of the J/ψ (N J/ψ ).,(1) represents the measured number This number was then corrected for the acceptance times efficiency (A ε) J/ψ 11.31% taking into account that photoproduced J/ψ are expected to be transversally polarized, for the branching ratio BR J/ψ µ + µ = 5.96%, normalized to the number of equivalent MB events N events (calculated from [19]), for the average nuclear overlap function ( T ), which values depend on the centrality class, and can be calculated from the Table I of [20]. In the case of the classes (30%-50%), (50%- 70%) and (70%-90%), we obtained the val- 3

4 ues 3.84 mb 1, mb 1 and 0.17 mb 1, respectively. At last, the result is normalized by proton-proton inclusive J/ψ production cross section, (σpp hj/ψ ), which is calculated from the parametrization suggested in [16], where d 2 σ hj/ψ pp dp T dy = c σ J/ψ p T 1.5 p T 2 with a = Γ (3/2) Γ (n 3/2) Γ (n 1) ( ( ) ) 2 n 1 + a 2 pt (2) p T c = 2a 2 (n 1). The values of the free parameters σ J/ψ, p T and n are obtained from the fit of the equation (2) with the ALICE data at the large p T [21]. This procedure results in σ J/ψ = 3.31, p T = and n = Applying this values in (2) and taking the integral in the kinematical regions of the interest, p T obtained σ hj/ψ pp < 0.3 GeV and 2.0 < y < 4.5, we = µb. In the ALICE measurement, both production mechanisms (hadro and photo) are considered, not being able to measure individually each component. Therefore, the events number of the J/ψ should be separated in two terms N J/ψ = N hj/ψ }{{} hadro + N γj/ψ }{{} photo (3) In relation to the hadro component, we do not calculate directly the J/ψ hadroproduction, but estimate its contribution from an analyses performed on the ALICE data, Figure 1. In the 70%-90% centrality, for example, the value measured of R in the region p T < 0.3 GeV is 7, while the value of R in the range 1.0 < p T < 8.0 is, approximately, 0.8. The R for p T > 1 GeV gives us a good approximation for the hadronic production of the J/ψ and assuming that the this contribution stays the same in the p T < 0.3 region, we can calculate the proportion between the hadro and photo contributions. Although the R hj/ψ data were obtained from a parametrization like Woods- Saxon, with p T dependence [16], the rough parametrizations R hj/ψ (p T < 0.3 GeV/c) = R hj/ψ (1 < p T < 8 GeV/c) and R hj/ψ (p T < 0.3 GeV/c) = 1, discussed in [16], reafirm the presence of the excess of J/ψ compatible with the results reported in the experimental paper. Thus, the hypotesis considered here produces 0.8/ for 70%-90% centrality class. Repeating the same procedure for the other centrality classes, 30%-50% and 50%-70%, we get ( ) ( 0.56 ( ( R hj/ψ R hj/ψ R hj/ψ ) ( ) ( R γj/ψ R γj/ψ R γj/ψ ) ) ) such that, 2.27N to 30% 50% N J/ψ = 1.56N γj/ψ to 50% 70% 1.12N γj/ψ to 70% 90% 4

5 Comparing the central values of the excess of J/ψ with the average rapidity distribution, both showed in the Table I of the [16], we can infer the approximate relation N γj/ψ 0.86 dσγ 106 J/ψ, which is valid for the three dy centrality classes of interest. Then, the calculation of the N J/ψ sets just in the calculation of the average rapidity distribution, which is estimated from the integration of the rapidity distribution in the range 2.5 < y < 4.0, as dσ γ J/ψ dy dσ γ J/ψ dy dy = y 2.5<y<4.0 (4) The rapidity distribution is calculated in this work following the photon flux and the colour dipole formalism, which are detailed in the next section. III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In the ultrarelativistic limit, the cross section of the exclusive nuclear photoproduction of the vector meson V can be written as the product between a quasi-real photon flux, which is produced from one of the nucleus, and the photonuclear cross section that corresponds to the photon-nuclei interaction γa V + A [22]. If we consider that only the photon flux carries the dependence with the impact parameter of the collision b, the differential cross section in the rapidity y and in the impact parameter b can be defined by [17] d 3 σ V d 2 bdy = ωn(ω, b)σ γa V A + (y y). (5) where ω = 1 2 M V exp(y) is the photon energy and M V is the meson mass. The photon flux espectra, N(ω, b), is directly connected with the eletromagnetic distribution of the emitting nucleus. This distribution is described by nuclear form factor F (k 2 ), which is the Fourier transform of the nuclear density profile. To ensure this dependence with the photon flux with the form factor, we used the generic formula showed in [23], N (ω, b) = Z2 α QED π 2 ω dk 0 k 2 F (k 2 ) J k 2 1 (bk ) 2, (6) where Z is the nuclear charge, γ = snn /(2m proton ) is the Lorentz factor, k is the transverse momentum of the photon and k 2 = (ω/γ) 2 + k 2. For a heavy nuclei as gold or lead, the Fermi distribution with 2 parameters (sometimes called Woods-Saxon) is more suitable. However, being not possible to obtain the analytic result to the form factor from this distribution, we adopted the approximation showed in [24, 25], where the Woods-Saxon distribution is rewritten as a hard sphere, with radius R A, convoluted with an Yukawa potential with range a = 7 fm. The Fourier transformed of this convolution is the product of the individual transforma- 5

6 tion as F (k)= 4πρ 0 Ak [sin (kr A) kr 3 A cos (kr A )] [ a 2 k 2 ], (7) where A is the mass number of the nuclei and ρ 0 = fm 3 for lead. The second component in the equation (5) is the coherent photonuclear cross section, which characterizes the photon-nuclei interaction and can be defined as σ (γa V A) = Im A(x,t=0) 2 16π (1 + β 2 ) Rg 2 t min F (t) 2 dt, (8) The parameter β = ReA/ImA restores the real contribution of the scattering amplitude and is usually defined as [26] β = tan ( ) πλeff 2, where λeff = ln [Im A(x, t = 0)]. ln s Other important parameter, R 2 g(λ eff ), is necessary for heavy mesons as J/ψ, and corresponds to the ratio of off-forward to forward gluon distribution (skewedness effect), being defined by [27] Rg(λ 2 eff ) = 22λ eff +3 Γ ( ) λ eff π Γ (λ eff + 4) The function F (t) is the same nuclear form factor showed in (7), which is integrated from t min = (M 2 V /2ωγ)2. At last, the amplitude Im A(x, t = 0) represents the imaginary part of the interaction amplitude for the γa V + A process. Based in good results obtained in last works [4 6], we described the amplitude Im A(x, t = 0) in the colour dipole formalim, where the photon-nuclei scattering can be seen as a sequence of the following subprocesses: (i) the photon fluctuation into quarkantiquark pair (the dipole), (ii) the dipoletarget interaction and (iii) the recombination of the q q into a vector meson. According [26], the amplitude can be written as Im A(x, t = 0) = d 2 r dz 4π (ψ V ψ γ) T σ nucleus dip (x, r), (9) where the variables z and r are the longitudinal momentum fraction carried by the quark and the transverse color dipole size, respectively. The transverse overlap of the photonmeson wave function, which is dominant in relation to longitudinal component in Q 0, can be written as [26] (ψ V ψ γ) T =ê f e N c πz(1 z) { m 2 f K 0 (ɛr)φ T (r, z) [z 2 + (1 z) 2 ] ɛk 1 (ɛr) r φ T (r, z)} where ê f = 1/3 for J/ψ, e = 4πα em, ɛ 2 = z(1 z)q 2 +m 2 f and N c = 3. The phenomenological term φ T (r, z) represents the scalar part of the meson wave-function and, here, it was used the Boosted-Gaussian model [28], since it can be applied in a systematic way for the excited states. The free parameters R 2 ns and N ns are obtained from the normalization and decay width conditions (see [26]) and can be found in [29, 30]. The next term in the equation (9) is the cross section σ nucleus dip (x, r), calculated via 6

7 Glauber model [31], Average Rapidity Distribution - scenario 1 dσ/dy [µb] 30%-50% 50%-70% 70%-90% GBW σdip nucleus (x, r)=2 d 2 b { 1 exp [ 1 2 T A(b)σ proton dip (x, r) ]} (10) where the nuclear profile function, T A (b), is obtained from a 2-parameter Fermi distribution for the nuclear density [32] and the dipole cross section, σ proton dip (x, r), is modeled from the GBW [33] and CGC [34] models, since both models presented good results in the ultraperipheral regime. Considering the kinematical range 2.5 < y < 4.0 and p T < 0.3 GeV, we combined the usual photon flux (eq. (6)) with the photoproduction cross section (eq. (8)) to calculate the average rapidity distribution as described in the section II. To take into account the centrality range, the relation c = b 2 /4R A was used, where c corresponds to centrality. Integrating in the impact parameter in the centrality classes (30%-50%), (50%-70%) and (70%-90%), we obtained the results showed in the Table I, which also presents the ALICE data. It is observed an excellent agreement with the data in the more peripheral region. In contrast, as going to more central regions, our estimates overstimate the ALICE data and, therefore, some correction with b dependence is required, as will be develped in the next section. CGC ALICE data 73 ± ± ± ± 8 59 ± ± 8 TABLE I: Comparison between our results for the dσ/dy using GBW and CGC models with the ALICE data for J/ψ [16]. IV. THE EFFECTIVE PHOTON FLUX To improve our calculations, we modified the photon flux following a similar procedure to that carried out in [17], in which an effective photon flux is built as a function of the usual photon flux with two restrictions: (1) only photons that reach the geometrical region of the nuclei-target are considered and (2) the photons that reach the overlap region are desconsidered. Consequentely, the vector b 1 that starts in the center of the emitting nuclei of the flux will map only the allowed region of the target-nuclei (shaded region of the Figure 2). In contrast with [17], we do not divide by a fixed region πr 2 A. Since we are interested in collisions with centrality which extends from 30% to 90%, we divide by mapped areas, A eff (b), which varies with b. Thus, we obtain N eff (ω, b) = 1 A eff (b) d 2 b 1 N (ω, b 1 ) θ(r A b 2 )θ(b 1 R(11) A ) 7

8 where A eff (b) = R 2 A [π 2cos 1 ( )] b 2R A + 2 b 4R 2 A b 2. The second term, N eff overlap, maps only the overlap region and its contribution is defined in the cartesian coordinate system by N eff overlap (ω, b) = 2 b ymax 0 db y bxmax b xmin db x N (ω, b 1 ) (14) where b 2 1 = b 2 x + b 2 y, and the integration limits are FIG. 2: Schematic drawing used in the construction of the effective photon flux. The function θ (R A b 2 ) corresponds to the first condition and ensures that the effective photon flux will be composed only by photons that reach the geometrical region of the nuclei-target. Then, the equation (11) can be rewritten as N eff (ω, b) = 1 b2 A eff db (b) 2 dαn (ω, b 1 ) θ(b 1 R A ), (12) where we expressed the flux in terms of the new variable (b 2, α) related to b 1 through the equation b 2 1 = b 2 + b bb 2 cos(α). The θ(b 1 R A ) function corresponds to the second condition and, therefore, discards the contribution of the photons that reach the overlap region where the nuclear effects are present. With this last condition, the equation (12) can be separated in two components, [ N eff (ω, b) = 1 A eff (b) N eff full (ω, b) N eff overlap (ω, b) ]. (13) The first term, N eff full (ω, b), maps all the nuclear region, including the overlap region, N eff full (ω, b) = b 2 db 2 dαn (ω, b 1 ). b xmin = RA 2 b2 y + b b ymax = RA 2 ( b 2, 2) b xmax = RA 2 b2 y. For purposes of numerical calculation, it s more useful to disconnect the dependence of the b xmin and b xmax with b y. This is achieved with the change of variables b y = g 1 (b) b y and b x = g 2 (b, b y ) b x + b/2, where the Jacobian functions g 1,2 are given by g 1 (b) = RA 2 (b/2)2, ( ) g 2 (b, b y ) = RA 2 b2 y b/2, In terms of the new variables, the Eq. (14) can be rewritten as N eff overlap (ω, b) = db ydb xg 1 (b) g 2 (b, b y ) N (ω, b 1 )(15) In the Figure 3, we compare the usual photon flux (Eq. (6)) with the effective photon flux (Eq. (13)) for the energies ω = 0.01 GeV and ω = 1 GeV, since for the centrality class 30%-90%, the photon flux is formed mainly for photons with energy ω < 200 MeV. For b < 4 fm (centrality < 8%), the usual photon flux considerably diverges from the effective photon flux, tending to 0 as b 0. On the 8

9 other hand, in the range 4 fm < b < 11 fm vide more interesting information on how far (8% < centrality < 60%), the usual photon the adopted formalism can be extrapoled. In flux is higher than the effective photon flux, mainly in the limit b R A 7 fm. At last, in the region b > 11 fm, the two models become similar for the energy ω = 0.01 GeV and ω = 1 GeV, approaching each other as we reach the ultraperipheral regime (b > 2R A ). (photon flux) [1/(GeV fm 2 )] N stand (,b) N eff (,b) b [fm] FIG. 3: Comparison between the usual photon flux (solid line) and the effective photon flux (dashed line) for the photon energy values ω = 0.01 GeV and ω = 1 GeV. Using the effective photon flux (Eq. (13)), the rapidity distribution was calculated for the nuclear photoproduction of the J/ψ in Pb-Pb collisions at s = 2.76 TeV and s = 5.02 TeV. Firstly, in the Figure 4, our estimates are given for the centrality classes 30%- especial, it was observed an increase of 12% from 70%-90% to 50%-70% and of 13.7% from 50%-70% to 30%-50%, for both dipole models, at y = 0. Similarly, at s = 5.02 TeV, it was observed an increase of the 12% from 70%-90% to 50%-70% and 13.3% from 50%-70% to 30%-50% at y = 0, Fig. 5. Therefore, the relative variation between the different centrality classes is not sensitive to the increase of the energy. dσ/dy [mb] 0,4 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 GBW CGC y FIG. 4: Rapidity distribution for J/ψ nuclear photoproduction at s = 2.76 TeV for different centrality classes using the GBW and CGC dipole models. 50%, 50%-70% and 70%-90% with s = 2.76 TeV, using the GBW and CGC dipole models. In relation to dipole models, there is large divergence in the y > 1.0 range but, in general, the curves showed a similar behavior. On the other hand, the comparison between the different centrality classes can pro- We also analized the ratio dσ5.02 dy / dσ2.76, ob- dy taining an increase of, approximately, 30% in the central rapidity region y < 1.5 for the three investigated centrality classes. This same ratio is, approximately, 60% for the same rapidity region in the UPC. Then, we 9

10 dσ/dy [mb] 0,55 0,5 0,45 0,4 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 GBW CGC FIG. 5: Rapidity distribution for J/ψ nuclear photoproduction at s = 5.02 TeV for different centrality classes using the GBW and CGC dipole models. can say that in this formalism the effective photon flux seems less sensitive with the variation of the energy in comparison with the usual photon flux. To compare with ALICE measurements, we recalculate the average rapidity distribution in the 2.5 < y < 4.0 range using the effective photon flux without changing the photonuclear cross section (scenario 2) and presented our results in the Table II. This time, it was observed better agreement with the data in the central region in relation to the one obtained using only the usual photon flux. In especial, the use of the CGC model produces better results than those produced by GBW model. y 10 Average Rapidity Distribution - scenario 2 dσ/dy [µb] 30%-50% 50%-70% 70%-90% GBW CGC ALICE data 73 ± ± ± ± 8 59 ± ± 8 TABLE II: Comparison of the our results with the ALICE data [16]. V. THE EFFECTIVE PHOTONU- CLEAR CROSS SECTION Until now, the transition from ultraperipheral to peripheral regime was performed by changing only the photon flux. However, knowing that in the built of the effective photon flux the nuclear overlap region was desconsidered. For consistency it is also necessary to discard the photon-target interaction in the overlap region. We do this applying the restriction Θ (b 1 R A ) in Eq. (10) in order to consider only the interaction of the photon with non-overlap region. Thus, the Eq. (10) can be written as σ nucleus dip (x, r)=2 dbdαbθ(b 1 R A ) { 1 exp [ 1 2 T A(b)σ proton dip (x, r) ]}, where, b 2 1 = B 2 + b 2 + 2Bbcos(α), being B the impact parameter of the nuclear collision. The combination of the modifications in the photon flux and in the photonuclear cross section constitutes the scenario 3, which results for the rapidity distribution are presented in the Table III,

11 Average Rapidity Distribution - scenario 3 dσ/dy µb 30%-50% 50%-70% 70%-90% GBW GBW/CGC 30%-50% 50%-70% 70%-90% S1: /81.53 S1: 53.92/43.20 S1: 34.50/27.79 CGC ALICE data 73 ± ± ± ± 8 59 ± ± 8 TABLE III: Comparison of the our results in the scenario 3 with the ALICE data [16]. ψ(2s) [µb] Υ(1S) [nb] S2: 65.51/52.31 S2: 51.32/41.05 S2: 42.45/34.02 S3: 37.54/30.04 S3: 41.24/33.08 S3: 39.89/32.02 S1: / S1: / S1: 88.16/80.70 S2: 247.7/ S2: /171.2 S2: / S3: / S3: / S3: / S1: 69.01/68.83 S1: 26.85/26.43 S1: 13.55/13.08 Υ(2S) [nb] S2: 39.88/39.55 S2: 29.51/29.17 S2: 23.03/22.67 S3: 23.07/22.83 S3: 24.08/23.75 S3: 21.85/21.46 S1: 32.92/33.50 S1: 12.62/12.65 S1: 6.29/6.17 Υ(3S) [nb] S2: 18.95/19.17 S2: 14.00/14.10 S2: 10.90/10.93 S3: 10.95/11.07 S3: 11.40/11.48 S3: 10.32/10.35 For completness, in addition to the J/ψ state, we also estimate the average rapidity distribution to ψ(2s) and to the three Y s states - Y (1S), Y (2S) and Y (3S) with s = 5.02 TeV. All the results are summarized in the Table IV, where each pair of the values corresponds to GBW (left) and CGC (right) models. It can be observed that the Y (2S) and Y (3S) are not good discriminators, since they produce similar results for the dipole models considered in the three scenarios. It can be observed that the relative variation between the scenarios is not dependent of the dipole models (ex. (S 1 /S 2 ) gbw (S 1 /S 2 ) cgc ) for each centrality class. TABLE IV: Average rapidity distribution in the region 2.5 < y < 4.0 for the mesons ψ(2s) and Y (1S, 2S, 3S) for the scenarios 1,2,3 labeled by S1,S2 and S3, respectively, presented as GBW/CGC. VI. R RESULTS Using the Eq. (1), we calculated the nuclear modification factor, R, for the three centrality classes investigated, considering the kinematic region p T < 0.3 GeV/c and 2.5 < y < 4.0. Using the CGC model, which gives better results, we compared the three scenarios developed in this paper with the ALICE data, Fig. 6. As can be ob- 11

12 served, the scenario 1 fits with the data only in the more peripheral region where the uncertainty is higher. However, in this scenario no relevant modification was performed in relation to the ultraperipheral regime. On the other hand, for the scenarios 2 and 3, where we applied a deeper dependence with b, better results were obtained for the more central classes where the incertainty is small. It should be considered that the ALICE measurements, which depend with the centrality of the collision, were taken following the centrality criteria developed in [20], where the ultraperipheral regime starts in b 20 fm, instead of the standard b 2R A. Consequentely, the interval in b corresponding to 70%-90%, for example, is not exactly the same obtained from the relation c = b 2 /4R A, employed in this work and closest to the Glauber model. This correction is required for a deeper comparison with the data, although main conclusions should not be affected. R 10 5 p T < 0.3 GeV/c ; 2.5 < y < 4.0 ; CGC model ALICE data Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario <N part > FIG. 6: Comparison of the R results with the ALICE data for the centrality classes 30%-50%, 50%-70% e 70%-90% [16]. VII. SUMMARY In this paper, we calculated the average rapidity distribution for the V = (J/ψ, ψ(2s), Y (1S), Y (2S), Y (3S)) mesons and estimate the nuclear modification factor for the J/Ψ state in the centrality classes 30%-50%, 50%-70% and 70%-90%. In our calculation, the ALICE data were compared with our estimates, obtained from three different approaches. In the simplest approach (scenario 1), was obtained better aggrement with the data only in the more peripheral region, where there is a considerable uncertainty. On the other hand, for the more consistent approach (scenario 3), the result overestimates in the more peripheral region, however, it agrees better with the data in more central region 12

13 where the incertainty is small. Although it is not yet possible to confirm that the exclusive photoproduction is solely responsible by J/ψ excess observed at ALICE, there are indications that it produces a considerable part of the effect. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dr. Ionut Arsene for usefull discussions. This work was partially financed by the Brazilian funding agency CNPq. [1] M. Arneodo and M. Diehl, arxiv:hepph/ (2005). [2] M. G. Ryskin, A. D. Martin and V. A. Khoze, Eur. Phys. J. C54, 199, (2008). [3] M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. 388, 41, (2003). [4] M. B. Gay Ducati, F. Kopp, M.V.T. Machado and S. Martins, Phys. Rev. D94, , (2016). [5] M. B. Gay Ducati, M. T. Griep, and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev. D88, , (2013). [6] G. Sampaio dos Santos and M. V. T. Machado, J. Phys. G42, , (2015). [7] T. Lappi and H. Mantysaari, Phys. Rev. C87, , (2013). [8] V. Guzey, E. Kryshen and M. Zhalov, Phys. ReV. C93, , (2016). [9] R. Fiore, L. Jenkovszky, V. Libov, M.V.T. Machado and A. Salii, AIP Conf. Proc. 1654, (2015). [10] R. Fiore, L. Jenkovszky, V. Libov and M.V.T. Machado, Theor. Math. Phys. 182, (2015). [11] N. N. Nikolaev, B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B332, 184, (1994); Z. Phys. C64, 631, (1994). [12] A. H. Mueller and J. W. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. B268, 427, (1986). [13] L. N. Epele, C. A. Garcia Canal and M. B. Gay Ducati, Phys. Lett. B226, 167, (1989). [14] A. L. Ayala, M. B. Gay Ducati and E. M. Levin, Nucl. Phys. B493, 305, (1997). [15] A. L. Ayala, M. B. Gay Ducati and E. M. Levin, Nucl. Phys. B511, 355, (1998). [16] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, , (2016). [17] M. K. Gawenda and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. C93, , (2016). [18] M. B. Gay Ducati and S. Martins, Phys. Rev. D96, , (2017). [19] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Phys. Lett. B 734, 314, (2014). [20] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. C88, , (2013). [21] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Phys. Lett. B 718, 295, (2012). 13

14 [22] C. A. Bertulani, S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, (2005). [23] F. Krauss, M. Greiner and G. Soff, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39, 503, (1997). [24] K. T. R. Davies and J. R. Nix, Phys. Rev. C 14, 1977, (1976) [25] S. Klein, J. Nystrand., Phys. Rev. C60, , (1999). [26] H. Kowalski, L. Motyka and G. Watt, Phys. Rev. D74, , (2006). [27] A. G. Shuvaev, K. J. Golec-Biernat, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D60, , (1999). [28] J. Nemchik, N. N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi and B. G. Zakharov, Z. Phys. C75, 71, (1997). [29] N. Armesto and A. H. Rezaeian, Phys. Rev. D90, , (2014). [30] B.E. Cox, J. R. Forshaw and R. Sandapen, JHEP 0906, 034, (2009). [31] N. Armesto, Eur. Phys. J. C26, 35, (2002). [32] C.W. De Jager, H. De Vries and C. De Vries, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 14, 479, (1974). [33] K. Golec-Biernat and M. Wüsthoff, Phys. Rev. D59, , (1998). [34] E. Iancu, K. Itakura and S. Munier, Phys. Lett B590, 199, (2004). 14