arxiv: v2 [hep-ph] 10 May 2016

Transcription

1 On the rapidit dependence of the average transverse momentum in hadronic collisions F.O. Durães, A.V. Giannini, 2 V.P. Gonçalves, 3,4 and F. S. Navarra 2 Curso de Física, Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie CEP , São Paulo, Brazil 2 Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo C.P. 6638, São Paulo, SP, Brazil 3 Instituto de Física e Matemática, Universidade Federal de Pelotas Caixa Postal 354, CEP , Pelotas, RS, Brazil 4 Department of Astronom and Theoretical Phsics, Lund Universit, Lund, Sweden. arxiv: v2 [hep-ph] 0 Ma 206 The energ and rapidit dependence of the average transverse momentum p T in pp and pa collisions at RHIC and LHC energies are estimated using the Colour Glass Condensate (CGC) formalism. We update previous predictions for the p T - spectra using the hbrid formalism of the CGC approach and two phenomenological models for the dipole - target scattering amplitude. We demonstrate that these models are able to describe the RHIC and LHC data for the hadron production in pp, dau and ppb collisions at p T 20 GeV. Moreover, we present our predictions for p T and demonstrate that the ratio p T() / p T( = 0) decreases with the rapidit and has a behaviour similar to that predicted b hdrodnamical calculations. PACS numbers: Kewords: Particle production, Color Glass Condensate Formalism I. INTRODUCTION The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has opened up a new frontier in high energ hadron - hadron collisions, allowing to test the Quantum Chromodnamics in unexplored regimes of energ, densit and rapidities, considering different configurations of the colliding hadrons (protons and nuclei) (For a recent review see e.g. []). In particular, the LHC experiments have unprecedented capacities to stud several subjects associated to forward phsics as, for instance, soft and hard diffraction, exclusive production of new mass states, low-x dnamics and other important topics(for a review see e.g. Ref. [2]). Forward phsics is characterized b the production of particles with relativel small transverse momentum, being traditionall associated with soft particle production, which is intrinsicall non perturbative and not amenable to first-principles analsis. However, in the particle production at large energies and forward rapidities, the wave function of one of the projectiles is probed at large Bjorken x and that of the other at ver small x. The latter is characterized b a large number of gluons, which is expected to form a new state of matter - the Colour Glass Condensate (CGC) - where the gluon distribution saturates and non linear coherence phenomena dominate []. Such a sstem is endowed with a new dnamical momentum scale, the saturation scale Q s, which controls the main features of particle production and whose evolution is described b an infinite hierarch of coupled equations for the correlators of Wilson lines [3 5]. At large energies and rapidities, Q s is expected to become much larger than the QCD confinement scale Λ QCD. Furthermore, the saturation scale is expected to determine the tpical transverse momentum of the produced partons in the interaction. Consequentl, the probe of the average transverse momentum p T in hadronic collisions can provide important information about the QCD dnamics (For related studies see, e.g. Refs. [6 8]). Another motivation for a detailed analsis of p T in pp and pa collisions is the recent suggestion made in Ref. [9] that this quantit can be used to disentangle the hdrodnamic and the CGC descriptions of the ridge effect (the appearance of long range correlations in the relative pseudorapidit η and the relative azimuthal angle φ plane) observed in high multiplicit events in small colliding sstems such as pp and p(d)a [0 7]. While the previousl ridge-tpe structure observed in heav-ion collisions at RHIC and the LHC was considered as an evidence of the hdrodnamical nature of the quark-gluon-plasma, see e.g. Refs. [8, 9] there is no compelling reason wh small sstems should also exhibit a hdrodnamical behaviour even though a hdro approach is able to describe the experimental data [20, 2]. On the other hand, the CGC approach also provides a qualitativel good description of the same data [22 32]. Therefore, the origin of the ridge in pp and pa collisions is still an open question. As the ridge effect, the azimuthal asmmetries observed in ppb collisions at the LHC energies b the ALICE [2], ATLAS [3, 33]

2 and CMS [, 7] collaborations are also open to different theoretical explanations. While in the hdro approaches those anisotropies emerge as a final state feature due to the hdrodnamic flow [20, 2, 34] in the CGC approach the are described as a initial state anisotropies which are present at the earliest stages of the collision [35]. In Ref. [9], the authors have studied the rapidit () dependence of the average transverse momentum of charged particles using ver general arguments that lead to simple analtical expressions. In particular, the Golec - Biernat Wusthoff (GBW) model [69] was used to describe the unintegrated gluon distribution and the fragmentation of the partons into final state particles was neglected. The authors of [9] have found that the average transverse momentum p T in the CGC approach grows with rapidit, in contrast to what is expected from a collective expansion. Indeed, the hdrodnamical model predicts a decrease of the average transverse momentum when going from midrapidit, = 0, to the proton side, owing to a decreasing number of produced particles. The prediction of these distinct behaviours is one the main motivations for the detailed analsis of the energ and rapidit dependencies of p T and thus to verif how robust this conclusion is. As the GBW model does not describe the p T - spectra measured in pp/pa collisions, in our stud we will consider two more realistic phenomenological saturation models that are able to reproduce the experimental data in the region of small transverse momenta. This is the region that determines the behavior of the average transverse momentum. Moreover, we will analse the impact of the inclusion of parton fragmentation in the rapidit dependence of p T. With these improvements, we are able to present realistic predictions for p T based on the CGC results that are able to describe the current experimental data on hadron production in hadronic collisions. This paper is organized as follows. In the next Section we present a brief review of the hbrid formalism and discuss the phenomenological models of the dipole scattering amplitudes used in our analsis. In Section III we update the main parameters of these phenomenological models b the comparison with the RHIC and LHC data on hadron production in pp, dau and ppb collisions. Using the new version of these models, which are able to describe the experimental data for p T 20 GeV, we present our predictions for the rapidit and energ dependencies of the average transverse momentum in pp and pp b collisions. Finall, in Section IV we summarize our main conclusions. 2 II. PARTICLE PRODUCTION IN THE CGC: THE HYBRID FORMALISM In order to estimate the energ and rapidit dependencies of the average transverse momentum p T we will need to describe particle production at forward rapidities and large energies. The description of hadron production at large transverse momentum p T is one the main examples of a hard process in perturbative QCD (pqcd). It can be accuratel described within collinear factorization, b combining partonic cross-sections computed to some fixed order in perturbation theor with parton distribution and fragmentation functions whose evolution is computed b solving the Dokshitzer - Gribov - Lipatov - Altarelli - Parisi (DGLAP) equations [36] to the corresponding accurac in pqcd. The high transverse momentum p T of the produced hadron ensures the applicabilit of pqcd, which is expected to fail to low-p 2 T. Furthermore, at forward rapidities the small-x evolution becomes important, leading to a growth of the gluon densit and of the gluon transverse momentum. Because of that, in this kinematical range their evolution in transverse momentum cannot be disregarded, which implies that at ver forward rapidities the collinear factorization is expected to break down. An alternative is the description of hadron production using the k T -factorization scheme, which is based on the unintegrated gluon distributions whose evolution is described b the Balitsk-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov(BFKL) equation [37]. However, if the transverse momentum of some of the produced particles is comparable with the saturation momentum scale, the partons from one projectile scatter off a dense gluonic sstem in the other projectile. In this case the parton undergoes multiple scatterings, which cannot be encoded in the traditional (collinear and k T ) factorization schemes. As pointed in Ref. [38], the forward hadron production in hadron-hadron collisions is a tpical example of a dilute-dense process, which is an ideal sstem to stud the small-x components of the target wave function. In this case the cross section is expressed as a convolution of the standard parton distributions for the dilute projectile, the dipole-hadron scattering amplitude (which includes the high-densit effects) and the parton fragmentation functions. Basicall, assuming this generalized dense-dilute factorization, the minimum bias invariant ield for single-inclusive hadron production in hadron-hadron processes is described in the CGC formalism b [39] dn h dd 2 = K() x p T (2π) 2 dx x F x F + f g/p (x,µ 2 )ÑA [ ( ) ( ) f q/p (x,µ 2 x xf )ÑF p T,x 2 D x h/q,µ 2 F x ( ) ( ) ] x xf p T,x 2 D h/g,µ 2, () x F x where p T, and x F are the transverse momentum, rapidit and the Fenman-x of the produced hadron, respectivel. The K()-factor mimics the effect of higher order corrections and, effectivel, of other dnamical effects not included in

3 the CGC formulation. The variable x denotes the momentum fraction of a projectile parton, f(x,µ 2 ) the projectile parton distribution functions and D(z,µ 2 ) the parton fragmentation functions into hadrons. These quantities evolve according to the DGLAP evolution equations [36] and obe the momentum sum-rule. It is useful to assume µ 2 = p 2 T. Moreover, x F = pt s e and the momentum fraction of the target partons is given b x 2 = x e 2 (For details see e.g. [39]). In Eq. (), Ñ F (x,k) and ÑA(x,k) are the fundamental and adjoint representations of the forward dipole amplitude in momentum space and are given b Ñ A,F (x,p T ) = d 2 re ipt r [ N A,F (x,r)], (2) where N A,F (x,r) encodes all the information about the hadronic scattering, and thus about the non-linear and quantum effects in the hadron wave function. Following [40], we will assume in what follows that N F (x,r) can be obtained from N A (x,r) after rescaling the saturation scale b Q 2 s,f = (C F/C A )Q 2 s,a where C F/C A = 4/9. In principle, we should also include in () the inelastic term that has been calculated in [4]. This term accounts for part of the full next-to-leading order correction to the hbrid formalism which has been recentl presented in [42, 43]. It has also been shown recentl [44] that the inclusion of this term modifies the shape of the p T spectra. However we are concerned onl with the average transverse momentum p T (and its rapidit dependence) and this term plas a negligible role in this observable, which is dominated b the low p T part of the spectra. Because of this reason we will omit this term in our analsis. In general the scattering amplitude N A (x,r) can be obtained b solving the BK evolution equation [3, 4]. The BK equation is the simplest non linear evolution equation for the dipole-hadron scattering amplitude, being actuall a mean field version of the first equation of the B-JIMWLK hierarch [3, 5]. Over the last ears, several authors have studied the solution of the BK equation including higher order corrections[45 47] and used it as input in the analsis of leading hadron production in pp/pa collisions, obtaining a ver good description of the experimental data [44, 49, 50]. In what follows, instead of the solution of the BK equation, we will consider two different phenomenological models based on the analtical solutions of this equation. This allows us to investigate the possibilit of getting a first insight on whether or not the LHC data are sensitive to geometric scaling violations at high values of p T. Moreover, as these phenomenological models differ from the GBW model in the dependence of the anomalous dimension with the momentum scale (see below), it becomes possible to clarif the origin of the differences between the predictions. Such analsis is a hard task when the numerical solution of the BK equation is considered as input of the calculations. Our phenomenological approach has limitations, being valid onl in a limited region of transverse momenta, not being competitive with recent parametrizations that have being used to describe the nuclear modification ratio R pa [44, 48 5]. As demonstrated in those references, a precise treatment of the nuclear geometr and/or the initial conditions is necessar to describe the ratio R pa. Such aspects are beond the scope of this paper. On the other hand, as p T is determined b the region of small p T, the use of phenomenological models that describe the experimental data in this kinematical range, allows us to obtain realistic predictions for this quantit. It is well known that several groups have constructed phenomenological models for the dipole scattering amplitude using the RHIC and/or HERA data to fix the free parameters [39, 40, 52, 53]. In general, it is assumed that N can be modelled through a simple Glauber-like formula, N(x,r T ) = exp [ 4 ] (r2t Q2s )γ, (3) where γ is the anomalous dimension of the target gluon distribution. The speed with which we move from the non linear regime to the extended geometric scaling regime and then from the latter to the linear regime is what differs one phenomenological model from another. This transition speed is dictated b the behaviour of the anomalous dimension γ(x,rt 2 ). In the GBW model, γ is assumed to be constant and equal to one. In this paper we will consider the dipole models proposed in Refs. [39, 40] to describe the p T spectra of particle production at RHIC. In the model [39], the anomalous dimension was proposed to be given b log(/rt 2 γ(x,r T ) = γ s +( γ s ) Q2 s) λ +d + log(/rt 2Q2 s). (4) with Q 2 s = A/3 Q 2 0 (x 0/x 2 ) λ, γ s = 28, Q 2 0 =.0 GeV2, x 0 = , λ = and d =.2. This model was designed to describe the forward dau data at the RHIC highest energ taking into account geometric scaling violations characterized b terms depending on the target rapidit, = log(/x 2 ), in its parametrization of the anomalous dimension, with the parameter d controlling the strength of the subleading term in. In contrast, in the model [40] the anomalous dimension is given b (ω a ) γ(ω = q T /Q s ) = γ s +( γ s ) (ω a )+b, (5) 3

4 4 d 2 N /d 2 p T dη [(GeV) -2 ] 0 ALICE, p+pb h + + h -, 5020 GeV < η <.3, x < η <, x η < old new d 2 N /d 2 p T dη [(GeV) -2 ] 0 ALICE, p+pb h + + h -, 5020 GeV < η <.3, x < η <, x η < old new FIG. : (Color online) Comparison between the and predictions for the transverse momentum p T-spectra of charged particles produced in ppb collisions and the ALICE data [58]. For the new version of the model we assume K = 3.7 for all pseudorapidit bins and for the new model K = 3.0, 3.0 and 3.7 for η = 0, 0.55 and.05, respectivel. where q T = p T /z is the parton momentum. The parameters of the model (γ s = 28, a = 2.82 and b = 68) have been fixed b fitting the p T -spectra of the produced hadrons measured in pp and dau collisions at the RHIC energies [40, 54]. With these parameters the model was also able to describe the ep HERA data for the proton structure function if the light quark masses are neglected. An important feature of this model is the fact that it explicitl satisfies the propert of geometric scaling [55 57] which is predicted b the solutions of the BK equation in the asmptotic regime of large energies. Since the forward RHIC data for the p T -spectra are reproduced b both models [39, 40], it was not possible to sa whether experimental data show violations of the geometric scaling or not. In principle, it is expected that b considering the transverse momentum distribution of produced hadrons measured at the LHC energies it should be possible to address this question since the new data are taken at a wider range of p T when compared to the RHIC data. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In what follows we will present our results for the average transverse momentum p T defined b p T = d 2 p T p T dn h dd 2 p T d2 p T dn h dd 2 p T (6) which is rapidit and energ dependent, i.e. p T = p T (, s). Moreover, it depends of the lower limit of the integrations over the transverse momentum (p T,min ). In order to obtain realistic predictions for LHC energies it is fundamental to use as input in the calculations a model which describes the experimental data on the p T spectra of produced particles. Consequentl, as a first step we will initiall compare the and predictions with the recent LHC data. In Fig. we present a comparison of these predictions using the original parameters, denoted old and old in the figures, with the LHC data on the p T spectra of charged particles in ppb collisions at s = 5.02 TeV and different rapidities [58]. We use in what follows the CTEQ5L parton distribution functions [59] and the KKP fragmentation functions [60], with the hadron mass being chosen to be the mean value of the pion, kaon and proton masses. Moreover, we compute Eq. () using the central values of η in the pseudorapidit ranges used in the experiment and choose A A min.bias = 20(8.5) for ppb (dau) collisions. We find that these models are not able to describe the ALICE data [58] at large transverse momentum with their original parameters. The natural next step is to check if a new fit of the free parameters of these models can improve the description of the experimental data. As one of the goals of our paper is to check if the average transverse momentum can be used to discriminate between the CGC and hdrodnamic descriptions of high multiplicit events observed in pp b collisions at LHC, our strateg will be the following: to determine the free parameters of the and the dipole scattering amplitudes b fitting the p T spectra of charged particles measured in ppb collisions at s = 5020 GeV and then compare the new models with the experimental data on pp collisions at other energies and rapidities. Moreover, differentl from the authors of Refs. [39, 40], who have assumed that γ s 3, which is the value obtained from the leading order BFKL kernel, we will consider γ s as a free parameter. The resulting fits are shown in Figs. and for the following

5 5 d 2 σ /d 2 p T dη [mb(gev) -2 ] 0 ALICE, p+p h + + h -, η < 7 TeV TeV, x TeV, x (/N evt ) d 2 N ch /d 2 p T dη [(GeV) -2 ] 0 0 ATLAS, p+p h + + h -, η < TeV TeV, x TeV, x (/N evt ) d 2 N ch /d 2 p T dη [(GeV) -2 ] 0 0 CMS, p+p h + + h -, η < TeV TeV, x TeV, x d 3 σ/d 2 p T dη [mb(gev) -2 ] 0 2 ALICE, p+p π 0, η = TeV, x 4 TeV (c) (d) FIG. 2: (Color online) Predictions of the and models for the p T spectra of charged particles in pp collisions. Comparison with the ALICE data [62]. The corresponding K factors are the following: K = 2.47 (K = 2.3), 2.07 (.85) and.77 (.6) for the () model for s =, 2.76 and 7 TeV. Comparison with the ATLAS data [63]. In this case we have assumed K = 3.3, 2.5 and 2.3, respectivel, for both models. (c) Comparison with the CMS data [64]. In this case we assume for both models K = 3.0, 2.5 and 2.3 for s =, 2.36 and 7 TeV. (d) Predictions of the and models for the p T spectra of neutral pions. Comparison with the ALICE data [65] for s = and 7 TeV. For both models we have K =.2 and 2.0. parameters: a = 2.0, b = 25 and γ s = 4 for the model and d =.0 and γ s = for the model. The data are better described if we assume larger values of γ s, which is consistent with the results obtained using the renormalization group improved BFKL kernels at next-to-leading order and fixed running coupling [6]. As it can be seen, with these parameter sets our curves agree well with the experimental data. In the range 4 < p T < 7 GeV the curves show an edg behaviour which is a reminiscence of the numerical Fourier transform. This is not a big effect and can be considered as part of the theoretical error in our calculations. It is important to emphasize that p T is onl marginall affected b these small oscillations (see below) and the qualitative fits presented here for both models considered are sufficient to get a realistic prediction for this observable since it is dominated b the low p T region. Having fixed the new parameters of the and models using the experimental data on hadron production in ppb collisions, we now compare their predictions with the recent LHC data on p T spectra of charged particles and neutral pions measured in pp collisions at different energies and distinct rapidit ranges. The onl free parameter in our predictions is the K factor, which can be energ and rapidit dependent. In what follows we will fix this parameter in order to describe the experimental data at lower p T. In Fig. 2 we present our results. We observe that both models describe quite well the experimental data for small p T, with the predictions becoming worse at higher p T with increasing center - of - mass energ. In contrast, the model also describes quite well data of larger p T, which can be associated to the contribution of the geometric scaling violations taken into account in this model. As a final check, let us compare the predictions of these new versions of the phenomenological models with the RHIC data on hadron production in pp and dau collisions in the central and forward rapidit regions. In Figs. 3 and

6 6 d 3 σ/d 2 p T dη [mb(gev) -2 ] 0 2 STAR, p+p π 0, 0.2 TeV 0 < η <, x 00 0 < η < 2, x < η < 3.45, x < η < 4, x < η < d 3 N/d 2 p T dη [(GeV) -2 ] d+au, 0.2 TeV STAR, h + + h -, η = 0, x 6 BRAHMS, h + + h -, η =, x 4 BRAHMS, h -, η = 2.2, x 2 BRAHMS, h -, η = 3.2 BRAHMS, π 0, η = σ γ * p (τ = Q 2 /Q s 2 (x)) [µb] x < 0.0 H 994,.5 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 350 GeV 2 ZEUS 994, 3.5 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 450 GeV H 995, 0.35 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 3.5 GeV 2 ZEUS 995, 0. GeV 2 < Q 2 < 5 GeV 2 ZEUS 2000, GeV 2 < Q 2 < 5 GeV 2 H 2000,.5 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 20 GeV 2 ZEUS 200, 2.7 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 650 GeV 2 - old new τ = Q 2 /Q s 2 (x) (c) FIG. 3: (Color online) Predictions of the and models for the p T spectra of neutral pions in pp collisions. For the model K =.5 for η = 0.5 and K =.2 for η =.4,3.25,3.7, For the model K =.2 for η = 3.25,3.7, The experimental data are from [66]; Predictions of the and models for the p T spectra of hadron production in dau collisions. For the model we have K = 2.9, 2.5, 2.0,.0 and.0 for η = 0,, 2.2, 3.2 and 4 respectivel. For the model we have K = 2.5, 2.4,.5 for η = 2.2, 3.2 and 4 respectivel. The experimental data are from [67]. (c) Comparison between the predictions and the ep HERA data for the total γ p cross section [68]. we present our predictions. We find that both models describe well the experimental data at forward rapidities. On the other hand, at central rapidities, the describes well the pp data for p T 0 GeV, but fails for p T 3 GeV in the case of dau collisions. In contrast, the results of the model are not shown for these rapidities since the are highl affected b oscilations for p T 5 GeV. The failure of the description at central rapidities at RHIC is not surprising since the energ is not ver large and the formalism used here is suited to the stud of the forward region where the small-x component of the target wave function is accessed. Finall, in Fig. 3 (c) we demonstrate that the new version of the model satisfies the propert of the geometric scaling and also is able to describe the ep HERA data for the total γ p cross section in a large range of photon virtualities. The results presented in Figs. 3 make us confident to obtain realistic predictions for the average transverse momentum. In what follows we will stud the energ and rapidit dependencies of the ratio R = p T(, s) p T (0, s) where the denominator represents the average transverse momentum at zero rapidit. The motivation to estimate this ratio is the reduction of the uncertainties related to the fragmentation functions as well as in the choice of the minimum transverse momentum present in the calculation of p T. Initiall, let us analse the dependence of our predictionson the model usedto describethe forwardscatteringamplitudes N A,F (x,r) and the impact ofthe inclusion of parton fragmentation. In Fig. 4 we compare the predictions of the and models with those from the GBW model [69], obtained assuming p T,min = GeV. It is important to emphasize that the GBW model is not able to describe the experimental data on hadron production in hadronic collisions, since it predicts that N A,F (x,r) decreases (7)

7 7.3 p+p partons, 5.02 TeV. p+p h + + h -, 5.02 TeV.2 <q T >/<q T > = 0. GBW <p T >/<p T > = 0 GBW p+pb partons, 5.02 TeV. p+pb h + + h -, 5.02 TeV.2 <q T >/<q T > = 0. GBW (c) <p T >/<p T > = 0 GBW FIG. 4: (Color online) Dependence of the ratio p T(, s) / p T(0, s) in the model used for the forward scattering amplitude in pp and pp b collisions. In panels and (c) parton fragmentation is disregarded, while in and (d) fragmentation is included. (d) exponentiall at large transverse momentum. However, as this model is usuall considered to obtain analtical results for several observables, we would like to verif if its predictions for p T are realistic. In Fig. 4 and (c) we present our predictions disregarding parton fragmentation, while in panels and (d) fragmentation is included. It is important to emphasize that our results for the GBW model without fragmentation, obtained using the hbrid formalism are similar to those obtained in Ref. [9] with the k T - factorization approach. We can see that the and predictions are similar (to each other) and differ significantl from the GBW one. While the GBW model predicts a growth of the ratio for 6, the and models predict that this ratio is almost constant or decreases with rapidit. The inclusion of parton fragmentation modifies the rapidit dependence, impling a smaller growth of the GBW prediction. In the case of the and predictions, the inclusion of fragmentation implies that the fall of the ratio begins at smaller rapidities. Our results demonstrate that the inclusion of fragmentation has an important impact on the behavior of p T. However, the main difference between our predictions and those presented in Ref. [9] comes from the model used to describe the QCD dnamics at high energies. This distinct behavior is present for pp and ppb collisions, with the behavior of the ratio at ver large rapidities being determined b kinematical constraints associated to the limited phase space. These results were obtained considering p T,min = GeV. In Fig. 5 we analse the dependence of our results on this arbitrar cut off in the transverse momentum. For this calculation we have compared the value of the saturation scale for a given transverse momentum and rapidit with the corresponding value of p T and assumed that the factorization scale is given b the harder scale. This basic assumption has been used in Ref. [70] in order to extend the hbrid formalism to hadron production at ver small - p T, obtaining a ver good description of the LHCf data. However, it is important to emphasize that we have checked that similar results are obtained if we freeze the factorization scale at the minimum value of Q 2 allowed in the parton distributions and fragmentation functions when smaller values of p T are probed in the calculation. The results shown in Fig. 5 indicate that the behaviour of the ratio with the rapidit is not strongl modified b the choice of p T,min.

8 8 <p T >/<p T > = p+p h + + h -, 2.76 TeV GBW, Q 2 = µ F 2 = max{pt 2, Qs 2 } = 0.5 GeV = 5 GeV =.0 GeV p Tmin =.25 GeV =.5 GeV <p T >/<p T > = p+p h + + h -, 2.76 TeV, Q 2 = µ F 2 = max{pt 2, Qs 2 } = 0.5 GeV = 5 GeV =.0 GeV =.25 GeV =.5 GeV FIG. 5: (Color online) Dependence of the ratio p T(, s) / p T(0, s) in the minimum transverse momentum p T,min considering the GBW and the model for the forward scattering amplitude.. p+p h + + h -. p+pb h + + h - <p T >/<p T > = 0 <p T >/<p T > = TeV 7 TeV 4 TeV TeV 5.02 TeV 8.8 TeV FIG. 6: (Color online) Rapidit dependence of the ratio R = p T(, s) / p T(0, s) in pp and ppb collisions for different energies. The () predictions are represented b blue (red) lines. Consequentl, we will consider p T,min = GeV in what follows. In Fig. 6 we present the behaviour the ratio p T (, s) / p T (0, s) for pp and ppb collisions considering different center of mass energies. We find that the predictions of the (red lines) and (blue lines) are similar, with the being slightl larger than the, and that the ratio increases with energ. Moreover, we oberve that for a fixed energ the ratio is larger for pp in comparison to ppb collisions, as demonstrated in Fig. 7 where we present our results for the ratio between the predictions for R = p T (, s) / p T (0, s) in pp collisions and those obtained for ppb collisions. Our results indicate that at ver large energies the predictions for R in pp and ppb collisions become identical. These predictions are an important test of the hbrid factorization and the CGC formalism. We believe that the analsis of the ratio R in pp and ppb collisions can be useful to probe the QCD dnamics at forward rapidities. Finall, the results from Fig. 6 indicate that the ratio decreases with the rapidit in pp b collisions for the energies probed b LHC, presenting a behaviour similar to that obtained using a hdrodnamical approach, which implies that in principle this observable cannot be used to discriminate the CGC and hdrodnamical approaches for the description of the high multiplicit events. This conclusion is opposite to that obtained in Ref. [9]. This difference comes from several facts. First, the CGC results in Ref. [9] were obtained using an analtical approximation for a particular unintegrated gluon distribution that does not describe (even at a qualitative level) the experimentall measured p T -spectra. Second, the calculation presented in [9] does not include the important contribution of the fragmentation processes to the average transverse momentum. Finall, kinematical constraints associated with phase space restrictions at large rapidities were not included in [9] and, even in a partonic scenario, the pla an important role at ver large rapidities. In contrast, in our analsis we have calculated the ratio R using two different models for the forward scattering amplitude that are able to describe the current experimental data on charged hadron and

9 TeV TeV R pp (, s)/r ppb (, s) TeV 8.8 TeV R pp (, s)/r ppb (, s) TeV 8.8 TeV FIG. 7: (Color online) Rapidit dependence of the ratio between the predictions for the R = p T(, s) / p T(0, s) in pp collisions and those for ppb collisions considering the and the models. pion p T spectra measured in pp and ppb collisions at LHC. We have included the effects of parton fragmentation and phase space restrictions. It is important to emphasize that although we have used the hbrid formalism instead of the k T - factorization approach, we have verified that both approaches impl a similar behavior for the ratio R when the GBW model is used as input and the parton fragmentation is not taken into account. Our results demonstrate that the main difference comes from the treatment of the QCD dnamics at high energies. IV. CONCLUSIONS In this paper we considered the hbrid formalism to stud the behaviour of the average p T with the rapidit in pp and ppb collisions at several energies in the CGC picture of high energ collisions. In order to obtain realistic predictions we have updated previous phenomenological models for the forward scattering amplitude, one with and other without geometric scaling violations. After constraining their parameters with the most recent data on the p T spectra of charged particles, measured in pp b collisions at the LHC, we demonstrated that the are able to describe the recent pp data on the charged hadron and pion p T spectra measured at LHC in the kinematical range of p T 20 GeV. Comparison of their predictions with the HERA and RHIC data were also presented. Using these models as input, we have calculated the average transverse momentum p T (, s) in pp and ppb collisions, and estimated the energ and rapidit dependencies of the R = pt(, s) p T(0,, which is an observable that can be analsed experimentall. s) We demonstrated that this ratio increases with the energ for a fixed rapidit and decreases with the rapidit for a fixed energ, with a behaviour similar to that predicted in hdrodnamical approaches for high multiplicit events. Our results indicated that this decreasing comes from the treatment of the QCD dnamics at high energies and the inclusion of the fragmentation process and kinematical constraints associated to the phase space restrictions at ver large rapidities. Finall, we demonstrated that these behaviours are ver similar in pp and pp b collisions. Acknowledgments This work was partiall financed b the Brazilian funding agencies CAPES, CNPq, FAPESP and FAPERGS. We thank Daniël Boer for ver instructive discussions. [] F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian and R. Venugopalan, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 463 (200); E. Iancu and R. Venugopalan, arxiv:hep-ph/ ; H. Weigert, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phs. 55, 46 (2005); J. Jalilian-Marian and Y. V. Kovchegov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phs. 56, 04 (2006). [2] K. Akiba et al. [The LHC Forward Phsics Working Group], LHC Forward Phsics, CERN-PH-LPCC [3] I. I. Balitsk, Nucl. Phs. B463, 99 (996); Phs. Rev. Lett. 8, 2024 (998); Phs. Rev. D 60, (999); Phs. Lett. B 58, 235 (200).

10 [4] Y.V. Kovchegov, Phs. Rev. D 60, (999); Phs. Rev. D (2000). [5] J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, L. McLerran and H. Weigert, Phs. Rev. D 55, 544 (997); J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner and H. Weigert, Phs. Rev. D 59, 0404 (999); Phs. Rev. D59, 0405 (999); Phs. Rev. D 59, (999); E. Iancu, A. Leonidov and L. McLerran, Nucl.Phs. A692, 583 (200); E. Ferreiro, E. Iancu, A. Leonidov and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phs. A70, 489 (2002); H. Weigert, Nucl. Phs. A703, 823 (2002). [6] J. Jalilian-Marian, Nucl. Phs. A 82, 40 (2008) [7] L. McLerran, M. Praszalowicz and B. Schenke, Nucl. Phs. A 96, 20 (203) [8] A. H. Rezaeian, Phs. Lett. B 727, 28 (203) [9] P. Bozek, A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Phs. Lett. B 728, 662 (204). [0] V. Khachatran et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 09, 09 (200). [] S. Chatrchan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phs. Lett. B 78, 795 (203). [2] B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phs. Lett. B 79, 29 (203). [3] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phs. Rev. Lett. 0, (203). [4] B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phs. Lett. B 726, 64 (203). [5] A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phs. Rev. Lett., 2230 (203). [6] L. Adamczk et al. (STAR Collaboration) (204), Phs. Lett. B 743, 333 (205). [7] S. Chatrchan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phs. Lett. B 724, 23 (203). [8] B. Alver and G. Roland, Phs. Rev. C 8, (200), erratum-ibid. C 82, (200). [9] L. Adamczk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phs. Rev. C 88, (203). [20] P. Bozek, Eur. Phs. J. C 7, 530 (20); P. Bozek and W. Broniowski, Phs. Lett. B 78, 557 (203); Phs. Rev. C 88, (203). [2] P. Bozek, W. Broniowski and G. Torrieri, Phs. Rev. Lett., (203). [22] A. Dumitru, F. Gelis, L. McLerran, and R. Venugopalan, Nucl. Phs. A 80, 9 (2008); S. Gavin, L. McLerran, and G. Moschelli, Phs. Rev. C 79, (2009). [23] A. Dumitru, K. Dusling, F. Gelis, J. Jalilian-Marian, T. Lappi and Venugopalan, Phs. Lett. B 697, 2 (20). [24] A. Dumitru and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phs. Rev. D 8, [25] A. Kovner and M. Lublinsk, Phs. Rev. D 83, (20); Phs. Rev. D 84, 0940 (20). [26] E. Levin and A. H. Rezaeian, Phs. Rev. D 84, (20). [27] E. Iancu and D. Triantafllopoulos, JHEP 05 (20). [28] K. Dusling and R. Venugopalan, Phs. Rev. D87, (203); D 87, (203). [29] Y. V. Kovchegov and D. E. Wertepn, Nucl.Phs. A 925, 254 (204). [30] R. L. Ra, Phs. Rev. D 84, (20); Phs. Rev. D 90, 5, (204). [3] A. Dumitru, L. McLerran and V. Skokov, Phs. Lett. B 743, 34 (205). [32] A. Kovner and A. H. Rezaeian, Phs. Rev. D 92, (205). [33] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phs. Lett. B 725, 60 (203); The ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF [34] P. Bozek, Phs. Rev. C 85, 049 (202); A. Bzdak, B. Schenke, P. Tribed and R. Venugopalan, Phs. Rev. C 87, (203); E. Shurak and I. Zahed, Phs. Rev. C 88, (203); K. Werner, M. Bleicher, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko and T. Pierog, Phs. Rev. Lett. 2, (204); B. Schenke and R. Venugopalan, Phs. Rev. Lett. 3, 0230 (204). [35] A. Dumitru and A. V. Giannini, Nucl. Phs. A 933, 22 (204); T. Lappi, Phs. Lett. B 744, 35 (205); B. Schenke, S. Schlichting and R. Venugopalan, Phs. Lett. B 747, 76 (205); A. Dumitru, A. V. Giannini and V. Skokov, arxiv: [hep-ph]; T. Lappi, B. Schenke, S. Schlichting and R. Venugopalan, JHEP 60, 06 (206). [36] Yu. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phs. JETP 46, 64 (977); V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phs. 5, 438 (972); G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phs. B 26, 298 (977). [37] L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phs. 23, 338 (976); E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phs. JETP 45, 99 (977); I. I. Balitsk and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phs. 28, 822 (978). [38] E. Iancu, C. Marquet and G. Soez, Nucl. Phs. A 780, 52 (2006). [39] A. Dumitru, A. Haashigaki and J. Jalilian-Marian, Nucl. Phs. A 765, 464 (2006); Nucl. Phs. A 770, 57 (2006). [40] D. Boer, A. Utermann, E. Wessels, Phs. Rev. D 77, (2008). [4] T. Altinoluk, A. Kovner, Phs. Rev. D 83, (20). [42] G. A. Chirilli, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan, Phs. Rev. Lett (202). [43] G. A. Chirilli, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phs. Rev. D 86, (202). [44] J. L. Albacete, A. Dumitru, H. Fujii and Y. Nara, Nucl. Phs. A 897, (203). [45] J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, J. G. Milhano and C. A. Salgado, Phs. Rev. D80, (2009). [46] J. Kuokkanen, K. Rummukainen and H. Weigert, Nucl. Phs. A 875, 29 (202) [47] T. Lappi and H. Mantsaari, Phs. Rev. D 9, (205). [48] J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Phs. Lett. B 687, 74 (200) [49] J. Jalilian-Marian and A. H. Rezaeian, Phs. Rev. D 85, 0407 (202); A. H. Rezaeian, Phs. Lett. B 78, 058 (203) [50] T. Lappi and H. Mantsaari, Phs. Rev. D 88, 4020 (203) [5] P. Tribed and R. Venugopalan, Phs. Lett. B 70, 25 (202) Erratum: [Phs. Lett. B 78, 54 (203)] [52] D. Kharzeev, Y.V. Kovchegov and K. Tuchin, Phs. Lett. B 599, 23 (2004). [53] J. Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat, H. Kowalski, Phs. Rev. D 66, 0400 (2002); H. Kowalski and D. Teane, Phs. Rev. D 68, 4005 (2003); E. Iancu, K. Itakura, S. Munier, Phs. Lett. B 590, 99 (2004); H. Kowalski, L. Motka and G. Watt, Phs. Rev. D 74, (2006); V. P. Goncalves, M. S. Kugeratski, M. V. T. Machado and F. S. Navarra, Phs. Lett. B 643, 273 (2006); C. Marquet, R. Peschanski and G. Soez, Phs. Rev. D 76, 0340 (2007); G. Soez, Phs. Lett. B 655, 0

11 32 (2007); G. Watt and H. Kowalski, Phs. Rev. D 78, 0406 (2008). [54] M. A. Betemps and V. P. Goncalves, JHEP 0809, 09 (2008). [55] A. M. Staśto, K. Golec-Biernat and J. Kwieciński, Phs. Rev. Lett. 86, 596 (200). [56] C. Marquet and L. Schoeffel, Phs. Lett. B 639, (2006) 47. [57] V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, Phs. Rev. Lett. 9, (2003); V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, JHEP 0704, 028 (2007). [58] B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phs. Rev. Lett. 0, (203). [59] J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsk and W. K. Tung, JHEP 0207, 02 (2002). [60] B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and B. Pötter, Nucl. Phs. B 582, 54 (2000). [6] G. P. Salam, JHEP 9807, 09 (998); M. Ciafaloni, D. Colferai and G. P. Salam, Phs. Rev. D 60, 4036 (999). [62] B. B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phs. J. C 73, 2662 (203). [63] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phs. Lett. B 688, 2 (200); G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], New J. Phs. 3, (20). [64] V. Khachatran et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 002, 04 (200); S. Chatrchan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 08, 086 (20); V. Khachatran et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phs. Rev. Lett. 05, (200). [65] B. I. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phs. Lett. B 77, 62 (202). [66] B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phs. Rev. D 80, 08 (2009). [67] J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phs. Rev. Lett. 9, (2003); I. Arsene et al. [BRAHMS Collaboration], Phs. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004); J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phs. Rev. Lett. 97, (2006). [68] S. Aid et al. [H Collaboration], Nucl. Phs. B 470, 3 (996); M. Derrick et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Z. Phs. C 72, 399 (996); C. Adloff et al. [H Collaboration], Nucl. Phs. B 497, 3 (997); J. Breitweg et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Phs. Lett. B 407, 432 (997); J. Breitweg et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Phs. Lett. B 487, 53 (2000); C. Adloff et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phs. J. C 2, 33 (200); S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Eur. Phs. J. C 2, 443 (200). [69] K. J. Golec-Biernat, M. Wusthoff, Phs. Rev. D 59, 0407 (998). [70] V. P. Goncalves and M. L. L. da Silva, Nucl. Phs. A 906, 28 (203)