the next qcd frontierskipper.physics.sunysb.edu/~abhay/eicwp12/draft/chapter1.pdf37 the vision for...
TRANSCRIPT
Electron Ion Collider:
The Next QCD Frontier
Understanding the glue that binds us all
White Paper Writing Committee
Elke C. AschenauerBrookhaven National Laboratory
William BrooksUniversidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria
Abhay Deshpande1
Stony Brook University
Markus DiehlDeutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY
Haiyan GaoDuke University
Roy HoltArgonne National Laboratory
Tanja HornThe Catholic University of America
Andrew HuttonThomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Yuri KovchegovThe Ohio State University
Krishna KumarUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst
Zein-Eddine Meziani1
Temple University
Alfred MuellerColumbia University
Jianwei Qiu1
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Michael Ramsey-MusolfUniversity of Wisconsin
Thomas RoserBrookhaven National Laboratory
1Co-Editor
1
Franck SabatieCommissariat a l’ Energie Atomique-Saclay
Ernst SichtermannLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Thomas UllrichBrookhaven National Laboratory
Werner VogelsangUniversity of Tubingen
Feng YuanLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Laboratories Management Representatives
Rolf EntThomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Robert McKeownThomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Thomas LudlamBrookhaven National Laboratory
Steven VigdorBrookhaven National Laboratory
2
Contents
1 Executive Summary: Exploring the Glue that Binds Us All 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Science Highlights of the Electron Ion Collider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Nucleon Spin and its 3D Structure and Tomography . . . . . . . . . 31.2.2 The Nucleus, a QCD Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2.3 Physics Possibilities at the Intensity Frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 The Electron Ion Collider and its Realization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.4 Physics Deliverables of the Stage I of EIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Spin and Three-Dimensional Structure of the Nucleon 142.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.2 Longitudinal Spin of the Nucleon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.2.2 Status and Near Term Prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.2.3 Open Questions and the Role of an EIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3 Confined Motion of Partons in Nucleons: TMDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.3.1 Introcution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.3.2 Opportunites for Measurements of TMDs at the EIC . . . . . . . . . 37
Semi-inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering (SIDIS) . . . . . . . . . . . 38Access to the Gluon TMDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.4 Spatial Imaging of Quarks and Gluons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.1 Physics Motivations and Measurement Principle . . . . . . . . . . . 442.4.2 Processes and Observables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.4.3 Parton Imaging Now and in the Next Decade . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482.4.4 Accelerator and Detector Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.4.5 Parton Imaging with the EIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522.4.6 Opportunities with Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3 The Nucleus: A Laboratory for QCD 583.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583.2 Physics of High Gluon Densities in Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2.1 Gluon Saturation: a New Regime of QCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Nonlinear Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Classical Gluon Fields and the Nuclear “Oomph” Factor . . . . . . . 66Map of High Energy QCD and the Saturation Scale . . . . . . . . . 68Nuclear Structure Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3
Diffractive Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743.2.2 Key Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Structure Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Di-Hadron Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Measurements of Diffractive Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.3 Quarks and gluons in the nucleus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873.3.1 The distributions of quarks and gluons in a nucleus . . . . . . . . . . 873.3.2 Propagation of a fast moving color charge in QCD matter . . . . . . 903.3.3 Strong color fluctuations inside a large nucleus . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.4 Connections to pA, AA and Cosmic Ray Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953.4.1 Connections to pA Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953.4.2 Connections to Ultrarelativistic Heavy-Ion Physics . . . . . . . . . . 98
Initial Conditions in AA collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Energy Loss and Hadronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.4.3 Connections to Cosmic Ray Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4 Possibilities at the Luminosity Frontier: Physics Beyond the StandardModel 1074.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074.2 Specific Opportunities in Electroweak Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.2.1 Charged Lepton Flavor Violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084.2.2 Precision Measurements of Weak Neutral Current Couplings . . . . 109
4.3 EIC Requirements for Electroweak Physics Measurements . . . . . . . . . . 112
5 The Accelerator Designs and Challenges 1135.1 eRHIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.1.1 eRHIC Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1155.1.2 eRHIC Interaction Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1175.1.3 eRHIC R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.2 MEIC: The Jefferson Lab Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185.2.1 Jefferson Lab Staged Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185.2.2 Baseline Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Ion Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Collider Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Interaction Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Electron Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6 The EIC Detector Requirements and Design Ideas 1256.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1256.2 Kinematic Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.2.1 y Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1256.2.2 Angle and Momentum Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1266.2.3 Recoil Baryon Angles and t Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1296.2.4 Luminosity Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1296.2.5 Hadron and Lepton Polarimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3 Detector and Interaction Region (IR) Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1326.3.1 eRHIC Detector & IR Considerations and Technologies . . . . . . . 1326.3.2 Detector Design for MEIC/ELIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4
Acknowledgment 139
References 140
5
Chapter 11
Executive Summary: Exploring the2
Glue that Binds Us All3
1.1 Introduction4
Nuclear science is concerned with the origin and structure of the core of the atom, the5
nucleus and the nucleons (protons and neutrons) within it, which account for essentially6
all of the mass of the visible universe. A half-century of investigations have revealed that7
nucleons are themselves composed of more basic constituents called quarks, bound together8
by the exchange of gluons, and have led to the development of the fundamental theory9
of strong interactions known as Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD). Understanding these10
constituent interactions and the emergence of nucleons and nuclei from the properties and11
dynamics of quarks and gluons in QCD is a fundamental and compelling goal of nuclear12
science.13
QCD attributes the forces among quarks and gluons to their color charge. In contrast to14
the quantum electromagnetism, where the force carrying photons are electrically neutral,15
gluons carry color charge. This causes the gluons to interact with each other, generating16
nearly all the mass of the nucleon and leading to a little-explored regime of matter, where17
abundant gluons dominate its behavior. Hints of this regime become manifest when nucleons18
or nuclei collide at nearly the speed of light, as they do in colliders such as HERA, RHIC19
and LHC. The quantitative study of matter in this new regime requires a new experimental20
facility: an Electron Ion Collider (EIC).21
In the last decade, nuclear physicists have developed new phenomenological tools to en-22
able remarkable tomographic images of the quarks and gluons inside protons and neutrons.23
These tools will be further developed and utilized to study the valence quark dominated24
region of the nucleon at the upgraded 12 GeV CEBAF at JLab and COMPASS at CERN.25
Applying these new tools to study the matter dominated by gluons and sea quarks origi-26
nating from gluons will require the higher energy of an EIC.27
As one increases the energy of the electron-nucleon collision, the process probes regions28
of progressively higher gluon density. However, the density of gluons inside a nucleon must29
eventually saturate to avoid untamed growth in the strength of the nucleon-nucleon inter-30
action, which would violate the fundamental principle of unitarity. To date this saturated31
gluon density regime has not been clearly observed, but an EIC could enable detailed study32
of this remarkable aspect of matter. This pursuit will be facilitated by electron collisions33
with heavy nuclei, where coherent contributions from many nucleons effectively amplify the34
1
gluon density probed.35
The EIC was designated in the 2007 Nuclear Physics Long Range Plan as “embodying36
the vision for reaching the next QCD frontier” [1]. It would extend the QCD science37
programs in the U.S. established at both the CEBAF accelerator at JLab and RHIC at BNL38
in dramatic and fundamentally important ways. The most intellectually pressing questions39
that an EIC will address that relate to our detailed and fundamental understanding of QCD40
in this frontier environment are:41
• How are the sea quarks and gluons, and their spins distributed in space42
and momentum inside the nucleon? How are these quark and gluon distributions43
correlated with overall nucleon properties, such as its spin direction? What is the role44
of orbital motion of sea quarks and gluons in building the nucleon spin?45
• Where does the saturation of gluon densities set in? Is there a simple boundary46
that separates this region from that of more dilute quark-gluon matter? If so, how47
do the distributions of quarks and gluons change as one crosses the boundary? Does48
this saturation produce matter of universal properties in the nucleon and all nuclei49
viewed at nearly the speed of light?50
• How does the nuclear environment affect the distribution of quarks and51
gluons and their interactions in nuclei? How does the transverse spatial distri-52
bution of gluons compare to that in the nucleon? How does nuclear matter respond53
to a fast moving color charge passing through it? Is this response different for light54
and heavy quarks?55
Answers to these questions are essential for understanding the nature of visible matter.56
An EIC is the ultimate machine to provide answers to these questions for the following57
reasons:58
• A collider is needed to provide kinematic reach well into the gluon-dominated regime;59
• Electron beams are needed to bring to bear the unmatched precision of the electro-60
magnetic interaction as a probe;61
• Polarized nucleon beams are needed to determine the correlations of sea quark and62
gluon distributions with the nucleon spin;63
• Heavy ion beams are needed to provide precocious access to the regime of saturated64
gluon densities and offer a precise dial in the study of propagation-length for color65
charges in nuclear matter.66
The EIC would be distinguished from all past, current, and contemplated facilities67
around the world by being at the intensity frontier with a versatile range of kinematics and68
beam polarizations, as well as beam species, allowing the above questions to be tackled69
at one facility. In particular, the EIC design exceeds the capabilities of HERA, the only70
electron-proton collider to date, by adding a) polarized proton and light-ion beams; b) a71
wide variety of heavy-ion beams; c) two to three orders of magnitude increase in luminosity72
to facilitate tomographic imaging; d) wide energy variability to enhance the sensitivity to73
gluon distributions. Realizing these challenging technical improvements will extend U.S.74
leadership in accelerator science and in nuclear science.75
2
The scientific goals and the machine parameters of the EIC were delineated in deliber-76
ations at a community-wide program held at the Institute for Nuclear Theory (INT) [2].77
The physics goals were set by identifying critical questions in QCD that remain unanswered78
despite the significant experimental and theoretical progress made over the past decade.79
This White Paper is prepared for the broader nuclear science community, and presents a80
summary of those scientific goals with a brief description of the golden measurements and81
accelerator and detector technology advances required to achieve them.82
1.2 Science Highlights of the Electron Ion Collider83
1.2.1 Nucleon Spin and its 3D Structure and Tomography84
Several decades of experiments on deep inelastic scattering (DIS) of electron or muon beams85
off nucleons have taught us about how quarks and gluons (collectively called partons) share86
the momentum of a fast-moving nucleon. They have not, however, resolved the question of87
how partons share the nucleon’s spin, and build up other nucleon intrinsic properties, such88
as its mass and magnetic moment. The earlier studies were limited to providing the lon-89
gitudinal momentum distribution of quarks and gluons, a one-dimensional view of nucleon90
structure. The EIC is designed to yield a much greater insight into the nucleon structure91
(Fig. 1.1, from left to right), by facilitating multi-dimensional maps of the distributions of92
partons in space, momentum (including momentum components transverse to the nucleon93
momentum), spin, and flavor.94
Figure 1.1: Evolution of our understanding of the nucleon spin structure. Left: in the 1980s,it was naively explained by the alignment of the spins of its constituent quarks. Right: currentpicture where valence quarks, sea quarks and gluons, and their possible orbital motion areexpected to contribute.
The 12 GeV upgrade of CEBAF at JLab will start on such studies in the kinematic95
region of the valence quarks, and a similar program will be carried out by COMPASS at96
CERN. However, these programs will be dramatically extended at the EIC to explore the97
role of the gluons and sea quarks in determining the hadron structure and properties. This98
will resolve crucial questions, such as whether a substantial “missing” portion of nucleon99
spin resides in the gluons. By providing high-energy probes of partons transverse momenta,100
the EIC should also illuminate the role of their orbital motion contributing to nucleon spin.101
3
The Spin and Flavor Structure of the Nucleon:102
An intensive and worldwide experimental program over the past two decades has shown that103
the spin of quarks and antiquarks is only responsible for ∼ 30% of the proton spin, while104
recent RHIC results indicate that the gluons’ spin contribution in the currently explored105
kinematic region is non-zero, but not yet sufficient to account for the missing 70%. The106
partons total helicity contribution to the proton spin is very sensitive to their minimum107
momentum fraction x accessible by the experiments. With the unique capability to reach108
two orders of magnitude lower in x and to span a wider range of momentum transfer Q109
than previously achieved, the EIC would offer the most powerful tool to precisely quantify110
how the spin of gluons and that of quarks of various flavors contribute to the protons spin.111
The EIC would realize this by colliding longitudinally polarized electrons and nucleons,112
with both inclusive and semi-inclusive DIS measurements. In the former, only the scattered113
electron is detected, while in the latter, an additional hadron created in the collisions is to114
be detected and identified.
x
Q2 (
Ge
V2)
EIC
√s=
140
GeV
, 0.01≤ y
≤ 0.95
Current polarized DIS data:
CERN DESY JLab SLAC
Current polarized BNL-RHIC pp data:
PHENIX π0 STAR 1-jet
1
10
10 2
10 3
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
1
EIC
√s=
45 GeV
, 0.01≤ y
≤ 0.95
Q2 = 10 GeV
DSSV+
EIC
EIC
5×100
5×250
20×250
all uncertainties for ∆χ2=9
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
∆Σ
∆G
current
data
2
Figure 1.2: Left: The range in parton momentum fraction x vs. the square of the transferredmomentum by the electron to the proton Q2 accessible with the EIC in e-p collisions at twodifferent center-of-mass energies, compared to existing data. Right: The projected reductionin the uncertainties of the gluon’s helicity contribution ∆G vs. the quark helicity contribution∆Σ to the proton spin from the region of parton momentum fractions x > 0.001, that wouldbe achieved by the EIC for different center-of-mass energies.
115
Figure 1.2 (Right) shows the reduction in uncertainties of the contributions to the nu-116
cleon spin from the spin of the gluons, quarks and antiquarks, evaluated in the x range from117
0.001 to 1.0. This would be achieved by the EIC in its early stage of operation. At the later118
stage, the kinematic range could be further extended down to x ∼ 0.0001 reducing signif-119
icantly the uncertainty on the contributions from the unmeasured small-x region. While120
the central values of the helicity contributions in Fig. 1.2 are derived from existing data,121
they could change as new data become available in the low x region. The uncertainties122
calculated here are based on the state-of-the art theoretical treatment of all available world123
data related to the nucleon spin puzzle. Clearly, the EIC will make a huge impact on our124
knowledge of these quantities, unmatched by any other existing or anticipated facility. The125
reduced uncertainties would definitively resolve the question of whether parton spin prefer-126
ences alone can account for the overall proton spin, or whether additional contributions are127
needed from the orbital angular momentum of partons in the nucleon.128
4
The Confined Motion of Partons inside the Nucleon:129
The semi-inclusive DIS (SIDIS) measurements have two natural momentum scales: the130
large momentum transfer from the electron beam needed to achieve the desired spatial res-131
olution, and the momentum of the produced hadrons perpendicular to the direction of the132
momentum transfer, which prefers a small value sensitive to the motion of confined partons.133
Remarkable theoretical advances over the past decade have led to a rigorous framework134
where information on the confined motion of the partons inside a fast-moving nucleon is135
matched to transverse momentum dependent parton distributions (TMDs). In particular,136
TMDs are sensitive to correlations between the motion of partons and their spin, as well as137
the spin of the parent nucleon. These correlations can arise from spin-orbit coupling among138
the partons, about which very little is known to date. TMDs thus allow us to investigate139
the full three-dimensional dynamics of the proton, going well beyond the information about140
longitudional momentum contained in conventional parton distributions. With both elec-141
tron and nucleon beams polarized at collider energies, the EIC will dramatically advance142
our knowledge of the motion of confined gluons and sea quarks in ways not achievable at143
any existing or proposed facility.144
Figure 1.3 (Left) shows the transverse-momentum distribution of up quarks inside a145
proton moving in the z direction (out of the page) with its spin polarized in the y direc-146
tion. The color code indicates the probability of finding the up quarks. The anisotropy in147
transverse momentum is described by the Sivers distribution function, which is induced by148
the correlation between the proton’s spin direction and the motion of its quarks and gluons.149
While the figure is based on a preliminary extraction of this distribution from current ex-150
perimental data, nothing is known about the spin and momentum correlations of the gluons151
and sea quarks. The achievable statistical precision of the quark Sivers function from the152
EIC kinematics is also shown in Fig. 1.3 (Right). Currently no data exist for extracting153
such a picture in the gluon-dominated region in the proton. The EIC would be crucial to154
initiate and realize such a program.155
u quark
−0.5 0.5
−0.5
0
0.5
0
Momentum along the x axis (GeV)
Mo
me
ntu
m a
lon
g th
e y
axis
(G
eV
)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
50
100
150
−310
−210
−110
50
100
150
10
20
30
40
50
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
1
2
3
4
1010 110 1
10
1515
10
15
20
3030
x
(GeV)Quark transverse momentum
Figure 1.3: Left: Transverse-momentum distribution of up quark with longitudinal momentumfraction x = 0.1 in a transversely polarized proton moving in the z-direction, while polarized inthe y-direction. The color code indicates the probability of finding the up quarks. Right: Thetransverse-momentum profile of the up quark Sivers function at five x values accessible to theEIC, and corresponding statistical uncertainties.
5
The Tomography of the Nucleon - Spatial Imaging of Gluons and Sea Quarks:156
By choosing particular final states in electron-proton scattering, the EIC would probe the157
transverse spatial distribution of sea quarks and gluons in the fast-moving proton as a158
function of the parton’s longitudinal momentum fraction x. This spatial distribution yields159
a picture of the proton that is complementary to the one obtained from the transverse-160
momentum distribution of quarks and gluons, revealing aspects of proton structure that are161
intimately connected with the dynamics of QCD at large distances. With its broad range of162
collision energies, its high luminosity and nearly hermetic detectors, the EIC could image163
the proton with unprecedented detail and precision from small to large transverse distances.164
The accessible parton momentum fractions x extend from a region dominated by sea quarks165
and gluons to one where valence quarks become important, allowing a connection to the166
precise images expected from the 12 GeV upgrade at JLab and COMPASS at CERN. This167
is exemplified in Fig. 1.4, which shows the precision expected for the spatial distribution of168
gluons as measured in the exclusive process: electron + proton→ electron + J/Ψ + proton.169
The tomographic images obtained from cross sections and polarization asymmetries for170
exclusive processes are encoded in generalized parton distributions (GPDs) that unify the171
concepts of parton densities and of elastic form factors. They contain detailed information172
about spin-orbit correlations and the angular momentum carried by partons, including their173
spin and their orbital motion. The combined kinematic coverage of EIC and of the upgraded174
CEBAF as well as COMPASS is essential for extracting quark and gluon angular momentum175
contributions to the proton spin.
bT (fm)
xV
Dis
trib
utio
n o
f g
luo
ns
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
1.2 1.4 1.6
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
1.2 1.4 1.6
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
1.2 1.4 1.6
stage-II,
∫Ldt =
10 fb-1
stage-I,
∫Ldt =
10 fb-1
e + p → e + p + J/ψ
15.8 < Q2 + M2J/ψ < 25.1 GeV2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.0016 < xV < 0.0025
0
1
2
3
4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.016 < xV < 0.025
0
1
2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.16 < xV < 0.25
Figure 1.4: Projected precision of the transverse spatial distribution of gluons as obtained fromthe cross section of exclusive J/Ψ production. It includes statistical uncertainty and systematicuncertainties due to extrapolation into the unmeasured region of momentum transfer to thescattered proton. The distance of the gluon from the center of the proton is bT in femtometers,and the kinematic quantity xV = xB (1+M2
J/Ψ/Q2) determines the gluon’s momentum fraction.
The collision energies assumed for Stage-I and Stage-II are Ee = 5, 20 GeV and Ep = 100, 250GeV, respectively.
6
1.2.2 The Nucleus, a QCD Laboratory176
The nucleus is a QCD “molecule”, with a complex structure corresponding to bound states177
of nucleons. Understanding the emergence of nuclei from QCD is an ultimate long-term goal178
of nuclear physics. With its wide kinematic reach, as shown in Fig. 1.5 (Left), the capability179
to probe a variety of nuclei in both inclusive and semi-inclusive DIS measurements, the EIC180
would be the first experimental facility capable of exploring the internal 3-dimensional sea181
quark and gluon structure of a fast-moving nucleus. Furthermore, the nucleus itself would be182
an unprecedented QCD laboratory for discovering the collective behavior of gluonic matter183
at an unprecedented occupation number of gluons, and for studying the propagation of184
fast-moving color charge in a nuclear medium.185
1
10
10-3
103
10-2
102
10-1 110-4
x
Q2 (
Ge
V2)
0.1
EIC √
s = 9
0 GeV, 0
.01 ≤
y ≤
0.9
5
EIC √
s = 4
5 GeV, 0
.01 ≤
y ≤
0.9
5
Measurements with A ≥ 56 (Fe):
eA/μA DIS (E-139, E-665, EMC, NMC)
νA DIS (CCFR, CDHSW, CHORUS, NuTeV)
DY (E772, E866)
perturbative
non-perturbative
transitio
n
region
En
erg
y
no
n-p
ert
urb
ativ
e r
eg
ion
Q2ssaturation
region
dilute region
Probe resolution
BK/JIMWLK
DGLAP
BFKL
Figure 1.5: Left: The range in parton momentum fraction x vs. the square of the transferredmomentum Q2 by the electron to the nucleus accessible to the EIC in e-A collisions at twodifferent center-of-mass energies, compared with the existing data. Right: The probe resolutionvs. energy landscape, indicating regions of non-perturbative and perturbative QCD, includingin the latter, low to high parton density, and the transition region between them.
QCD at Extreme Parton Densities:186
In QCD, the large soft-gluon density enables the non-linear process of gluon-gluon recom-187
bination to limit the density growth. Such a QCD self-regulation mechanism necessarily188
generates a dynamic scale from the interaction of high density massless gluons, known as189
the saturation scale, Qs, at which gluon splitting and recombination reach a balance. At190
this scale the density of gluons is expected to saturate, producing new and universal prop-191
erties of hadronic matter. The saturation scale Qs separates the condensed and saturated192
soft gluonic matter from the dilute but confined quarks and gluons in a hadron, as shown193
in Fig. 1.5 (Right).194
The existence of such a saturated soft gluon matter, often referred to as Color Glass195
Condensate (CGC), is a direct consequence of gluon self-interactions in QCD. It has been196
conjectured that the CGC of QCD has universal properties common to nucleons and all197
nuclei, which could be systematically computed if the dynamic saturation scale Qs is suffi-198
ciently large. However, such a semi-hard Qs is difficult to reach unambiguously in electron-199
7
proton scattering without a multi-TeV proton beam. Heavy ion beams at the EIC could200
provide precocious access to the saturation regime and the properties of the CGC because201
the virtual photon in forward lepton scattering probes matter coherently over a character-202
istic length proportional to 1/x, which can exceed the diameter of a Lorentz-contracted203
nucleus. Then, all gluons at the same impact parameter of the nucleus, enhanced by the204
nuclear diameter proportional to A1/3 with the atomic weight A, contribute to the probed205
density, reaching saturation at far lower energies than would be needed in electron-proton206
collisions. While HERA, RHIC and the LHC have only found hints of saturated gluonic207
matter, the EIC would be in a position to seal the case, completing the process started at208
those facilities.209
1 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Ra
tio
of d
iffra
ctive
-to
-to
tal cro
ss-
se
ctio
n fo
r e
Au
ove
r th
at in
ep
non-saturation model (LTS)
saturation model
stat. errors & syst. uncertainties enlarged (× 10)
Q2 = 5 GeV2
x = 3.3×10-3
eAu stage-I
Mx2 (GeV
2)
∫Ldt = 10 fb-1/A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
φ saturation (bSat)
Ra
tio
of co
he
ren
t d
iffra
ctive
cro
ss s
ectio
ns
fo
r D
IS o
n g
old
to
DIS
on
pro
ton
e + p(Au) → e’ + p’(Au’) + V
φ no saturation
J/ψ no saturation
J/ψ saturation (bSat)
Experimental Cuts:
|η(Vdecay products)| < 4
p(Vdecay products) > 1 GeV/c
Coherent events only
stage-II, ∫Ldt = 10 fb-1/A
x < 0.01
Q2(GeV2)
Figure 1.6: Left: The ratio of diffractive over total cross section for DIS on gold normalizedto DIS on proton plotted for different values, M2
X, the mass square of hadrons produced inthe collisions for models assuming saturation and non-saturation. The grey bars are estimatedsystematic uncertainties. Right: The ratio of coherent diffractive cross section in e-Au toe-p collisions normalized by A4/3 plotted as a function of Q2, plotted for saturation and non-saturation models. The 1/Q is effectively the initial size of the quark-antiquark systems (φ andJ/Ψ) produced in the medium.
Figure 1.6 illustrates some of the dramatic predicted effects of gluon density saturation in210
electron-nucleus vs. electron-proton collisions at an EIC. The left frame considers coherent211
diffractive processes, defined to include all events in which the beam nucleus remains intact212
and there is a rapidity gap containing no produced particles. As shown in the figure, gluon213
saturation greatly enhances the fraction of the total cross section accounted for by such214
diffractive events. An early measurement of coherent diffraction in e+A collisions at the215
EIC would provide the first unambiguous evidence for gluon saturation.216
Figure 1.6 (Right) shows that gluon saturation is predicted to suppress vector meson217
production in e+A relative to e+p collisions at the EIC. The vector mesons result from218
quark-antiquark pair fluctuations of the virtual photon, which hadronize upon exchange of219
gluons with the beam proton or nucleus. The magnitude of the suppression depends on220
the size (or color dipole moment) of the quark-antiquark pair, being significantly larger for221
produced φ (red points) than for J/Ψ (blue) mesons. An EIC measurement of the processes222
8
in Fig. 1.6 (Right) would provide a powerful probe to explore the properties of the saturated223
gluon matter.224
Both the coherent diffractive and total DIS cross sections on nuclei are suppressed225
comparing to those on the proton in all saturation models. But, the suppression on the226
diffractive cross section is weaker than that on the total cross section leading to a dramatic227
enhancement in the double ratio as shown in Fig. 1.6 (Left).228
The Tomography of the Nucleus:229
With its capability to measure the diffractive and exclusive processes with a variety of ion230
beams, the EIC would also provide the first 3-dimensional images of sea quarks and gluons231
in a fast-moving nucleus with sub-femtometer resolution. For example, the EIC could232
obtain the spatial distribution of gluons in a nucleus by measuring the coherent diffractive233
production of J/Ψ in electron-nucleus scattering, similar to the case of electron-proton234
scattering shown in figure 1.4.235
Propagation of a Color Charge in QCD Matter:236
One of the key pieces of evidence for the discovery of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) at RHIC237
is jet quenching, manifested as a strong suppression of fast-moving hadrons produced in238
the very hot matter created in relativistic heavy ion collisions. The suppression is believed239
to be due to the energy loss of partons traversing the QGP. It has been puzzling that the240
production is nearly as much suppressed for heavy as for light mesons, even though a heavy241
quark is much less likely to lose its energy via medium-induced radiation of gluons. Some of242
the remaining mysteries surrounding heavy vs. light quark interactions in hot matter can243
be illuminated by EIC studies of related phenomena in cold nuclear matter. For example,244
the variety of ion beams available for electron-nucleus collisions at the EIC would provide245
a femtometer filter to test and to help determine the correct mechanism by which quarks246
and gluons lose energy and hadronize in nuclear matter (see schematic in Fig. 1.7 (Left)).247
Figure 1.7 (Right) shows the ratio of number of produced mesons in electron-nucleus248
and electron-deuteron collisions for pion (light mesons) and D0-mesons (heavy mesons) at249
both low and high virtual photon energy ν, as a function of z - the momentum fraction of250
the virtual photon taken by the observed meson. The calculation of the lines and blue circle251
symbols assumes the mesons are formed outside of the nucleus, as shown in the top sketch252
of Fig. 1.7 (Left), while the square symbols are simulated according to a model where a253
color neutral pre-hadron was formed inside the nucleus, like in the bottom sketch of Fig. 1.7254
(Left). The location of measurements within the shaded area would provide the first direct255
information on when the mesons are formed. Unlike the suppression expected for pion256
production at all z, the ratio of heavy meson production could be larger than unity due to257
very different hadronization properties of heavy mesons. The discovery of such a dramatic258
difference in multiplicity ratios between light and heavy mesons at the EIC would shed light259
on the hadronization process and on what governs the transition from quarks to hadrons.260
The Distribution of Quarks and Gluons in the Nucleus:261
The EMC experiment at CERN and experiments in the following two decades clearly re-262
vealed that the distribution of quarks in a fast-moving nucleus is not a simple superposition263
of their distributions within nucleons. Instead, the ratio of nuclear over nucleon structure264
functions follows a non-trivial function of Bjorken x, deviating significantly from unity, with265
a suppression (often referred to as nuclear shadowing) as x decreases. Amazingly, there is as266
of yet no knowledge whether the same holds true for gluons. With its much wider kinematic267
reach in both x and Q, the EIC could measure the suppression of the structure functions to268
a much lower value of x, approaching the region of gluon saturation. In addition, the EIC269
9
h
h
γ∗
γ∗
0.30
0.50
0.70
0.90
1.10
1.30
1.50
Rat
io o
f par
ticle
s pr
oduc
ed in
lea
d o
ve
r p
roto
n D0 mesons (lower energy)
Pions (lower energy)
D0 mesons (higher energy)
Pions (higher energy)
Wang, pions (lower energy)
Wang, pions (higher energy)
0.01 < y < 0.85, x > 0.1, 10 fb-1
Higher energy : 25 GeV2< Q
2< 45 GeV
2, 140 GeV < < 150 GeV
Lower energy : 8 GeV2< Q
2<12 GeV
2, 32.5 GeV< < 37.5 GeV
1- D0systematic
uncertainty
1- pion systematicuncertainty
v
v
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Z
Figure 1.7: Left: Schematic illustrating the interaction of a parton moving through coldnuclear matter: the hadron is formed outside (top) or inside (bottom) the nucleus. Right:Ratio of semi-inclusive cross section for producing a pion (red) composed of light quarks, and aD0 meson (blue) composed of heavy quarks in e-Lead collisions to e-deuteron collisions, plottedas function of z, the ratio of the momentum carried by the produced hadron to that of thevirtual photon (γ∗), as shown in the plots on the Left.
could for the first time reliably quantify the nuclear gluon distribution over a wide range of270
momentum fraction x.271
1.2.3 Physics Possibilities at the Intensity Frontier272
The subfield of Fundamental Symmetries in nuclear physics has an established history of273
key discoveries, enabled by either the introduction of new technologies or the increase in274
energy and luminosity of accelerator facilities. While the EIC is primarily being proposed for275
exploring new frontiers in QCD, it offers a unique new combination of experimental probes276
potentially interesting to the investigations in Fundamental Symmetries. For example,277
the availability of polarized beams at high energy and high luminosity, combined with a278
state-of-the-art hermetic detector, could extend Standard Model tests of the running of279
the weak-coupling constant far beyond the reach of the JLab12 parity violation program,280
namely toward the Z-pole scale previously probed at LEP and SLC.281
1.3 The Electron Ion Collider and its Realization282
Two independent designs for a future EIC have evolved in the US. Both use the existing283
infrastructure and facilities available to the US nuclear science community. At Brookhaven284
National Laboratory (BNL) the eRHIC design (Figure 1.8, top) utilizes a new electron beam285
facility based on an Energy Recovery LINAC (ERL) to be built inside the RHIC tunnel to286
collide with RHICs existing high-energy polarized proton and nuclear beams. At Jefferson287
Laboratory (JLab) the ELectron Ion Collider (ELIC) design (Figure 1.8, bottom) employs288
10
a new electron and ion collider ring complex together with the 12 GeV upgraded CEBAF,289
now under construction, to achieve similar collision parameters.290
eSTAR
ePH
EN
IX
30 GeV
30 GeV
100 m
Lina
c 2.
45 G
eV
Linac 2.45 GeV
Coh
eren
t e-c
oole
r
Polarized
e-gun
Beam
dump
0.60 GeV
5.50 GeV
10.4 GeV
15.3 GeV
20.2 GeV
25.1 GeV
30.0 GeV
3.05 GeV
7.95 GeV
12.85 GeV
17.75 GeV
22.65 GeV
27.55 GeV
0.6 GeV
0.6 GeV
27.55 GeV
New
detector
Figure 1.8: Top: The schematic of eRHIC at BNL: require construction of an electron beamfacility (red) to collide with the RHIC blue beam at up to three interaction points. Botton:The schematic of ELIC at JLab: require construction of the ELIC complex (red, black/grey) andits injector (green on the top) around the 12 GeV CEBAF.
The EIC machine designs are aimed at achieving291
• Highly polarized (∼ 70%) electron and nucleon beams292
11
• Ion beams from deuteron to the heaviest nuclei (Uranium or Lead)293
• Variable Center of mass energies from ∼ 20− ∼100 GeV, upgradable to ∼150 GeV294
• Collision luminosity ∼1033−34 cm−2s−1295
• Possibilities of having more than one interaction region296
The EIC requirements will push the accelerator designs to the limits of current tech-297
nology, and will therefore need significant R&D. Cooling of the hadron beam is essential to298
attain the luminosities demanded by the science. Development of coherent electron cooling299
is now underway at BNL, while the JLab design is based on conventional electron cooling300
techniques, but proposes to use bunched electron beams for the first time.301
An energy recovery linac at the highest possible energy and intensity are key to the302
realization of eRHIC at BNL, and this technology is also important for electron cooling in303
ELIC at JLab. The eRHIC design at BNL also requires a high intensity polarized electron304
source, that would be an order of magnitude higher in intensity than the current state of305
the art, while the ELIC design at JLab, will utilize a novel figure-8 storage ring design for306
both electrons and ions.307
The physics-driven requirements on the EIC accelerator parameters and extreme de-308
mands on the kinematic coverage for measurements, makes integration of the detector into309
the accelerator a particularly challenging feature of the design. Lessons learned from past ex-310
perience at HERA have been considered while designing the EIC interaction region. Driven311
by the demand for high precision on particle detection and identification of final state par-312
ticles in both e-p and e-A programs, modern particle detector systems will be at the heart313
of the EIC. In order to keep the detector costs manageable, R&D efforts are under way314
on various novel ideas for: compact (fiber sampling & crystal) calorimetry, tracking (NaI315
coated GEMs, GEM size & geometries), particle identification (compact DIRC, dual ra-316
diator RICH & novel TPC) and high radiation tolerance for electronics. Meeting these317
R&D challenges will keep the U.S. nuclear science community at the cutting edge in both318
accelerator and detector technology.319
1.4 Physics Deliverables of the Stage I of EIC320
A staged realization of the EIC is being planned for both the eRHIC and ELIC designs.321
The first stage is anticipated to have up to ∼ 60− 100 GeV in center-of-mass-energy, with322
polarized nucleon and electron beams, a wide range of heavy ion beams for nuclear DIS, and323
a luminosity for electron-proton collisions approaching 1034 cm−2s−1. With such a facility,324
the EIC physics program would have an excellent start toward addressing the following325
fundamental questions with key measurements:326
• The proton spin: Within just a few months of operation, the EIC would be able327
to deliver decisive measurements, no other facility in the world could achieve, on how328
much the intrinsic spin of quarks and gluons contribute to the proton spin as shown329
in Fig. 1.2 (Right).330
• The motion of quarks and gluons in the proton: Semi-inclusive measurements331
with polarized beams would enable us to selectively probe with precision the correla-332
tion between the spin of a fast moving proton and the confined transverse motion of333
both quarks and gluons within. Images in momentum space as shown in Fig. 1.3 are334
12
simply unattainable without the polarized electron and proton beams of the proposed335
EIC.336
• The tomographic images of the proton: By measuring exclusive processes, the337
EIC with its unprecedented luminosity and detector coverage would create detailed338
images of the proton gluonic matter distribution as shown in Fig. 1.4, as well as the339
images of sea quarks. Such measurements would reveal aspects of proton structure340
that are intimately connected with QCD dynamics at large distances.341
• QCD matter at an extreme gluon density: By measuring the diffractive cross342
sections together with the total DIS cross sections in electron-proton and electron-343
nucleus collisions as shown in Fig. 1.6, the EIC would provide the first unambiguous344
evidence for the novel QCD matter of saturated gluons. The EIC is poised to explore345
with precision the new field of the collective dynamics of saturated gluons at high346
energies.347
• Quark hadronization: By measuring pion and D0 meson production in both electron-348
proton and electron-nucleus collisions, the EIC would provide the first measurement349
of the quark mass dependence of the hadronization along with the response of nuclear350
matter to a fast moving quark.351
The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at BNL has revolutionized our understand-352
ing of hot and dense QCD matter through its discovery of the strongly coupled quark-gluon353
plasma that existed a few microseconds after the birth of the universe. Unprecedented354
studies of the nucleon and nuclear structure including the nucleon spin, and the nucleon’s355
tomographic images in the valence quark region have been, and will be, possible with the356
high luminosity fixed target experiments at Jefferson Laboratory using the 6 and 12 GeV357
CEBAF, respectively. The EIC promises to propel both programs to the next QCD frontier,358
by unraveling the three dimensional sea quark and gluon structure of the visible matter.359
Further, the EIC will probe the existence of the universal saturated gluon matter and has360
the capability to explore it in detail. The EIC will thus enable the US to continue its361
leadership role in nuclear science research through the quest for understanding the unique362
gluon-dominated nature of visible matter in the universe.363
13
Acknowledgment3778
This document is a result of a community wide effort. We particularly thank the fol-3779
lowing colleagues for their contributions to the preparation of this document:3780
J. L. Albacete (IPNO, Universite Paris-Sud 11, CNRS/IN2P3)3781
M. Anselmino (Torino University & INFN)3782
N. Armesto (University of Santiago de Campostella)3783
A. Bacchetta (University of Pavia)3784
T. Burton (Brookhaven National Lab)3785
N.-B. Chang(Shandong University)3786
W.-T. Deng (Frankfurt U., FIAS & Shandong University)3787
A. Dumitru (Baruch College, CUNY)3788
R. Dupre (CEA, Centre de Saclay)3789
S. Fazio (Brookhaven National Lab)3790
V. Guzey (Jefferson Lab)3791
H. Hakobyan(Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria)3792
Y. Hao (Brookhaven National Lab)3793
D. Hasch (INFN, Frascatti)3794
M. Huang(Duke University)3795
C. Hyde (Old Dominion University)3796
B. Kopeliovich (Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria)3797
K. Kumericki (University of Zagreb)3798
M. Lamont (Brookhaven National Lab)3799
T. Lappi (University of Jyvaskyla)3800
J.-H. Lee (Brookhaven National Lab)3801
Y. Lee (Brookhaven National Lab)3802
E. M. Levin (Tel Aviv University & Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Marıa)3803
F.-L. Lin (Brookhaven National Lab)3804
V. Litvinenko (Brookhaven National Lab)3805
C. Marquet (CERN)3806
A. Metz (Temple University)3807
V. S. Morozov (Jefferson Lab)3808
D. Muller (Ruhr-University Bochum)3809
P. Nadel-Turonski (Jefferson Lab)3810
A. Prokudin (Jefferson Lab)3811
V. Ptitsyn, (Brookhaven National Lab)3812
X. Qian (Caltech)3813
R. Sassot (University de Buenos Aires)3814
G. Schnell (University of Basque Country, Bilbao)3815
P. Schweitzer (University of Connecticut)3816
M. Stratmann (Brookhaven National Lab)3817
M. Sullivan (SLAC)3818
S. Taneja (Stony Brook University & Dalhousie University)3819
T. Toll (Brookhaven National Lab)3820
D. Trbojevic (Brookhaven National Lab)3821
R. Venugopalan (Brookhaven National Lab)3822
138
X. N. Wang (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab & Central China Normal University)3823
B.-W. Xiao (Central China Normal University)3824
Y.-H. Zhang (Jefferson Lab)3825
L. Zheng (Brookhaven National Lab)3826
139
References3827
[1] NSAC Long Range Plan (2007), http://science.energy.gov/np/nsac/.3828
[2] D. Boer et al., (2011), arXiv:1108.1713, 547 pages, A report on the joint BNL/INT/Jlab3829
program on the science case for an Electron-Ion Collider, September 13 to November 19, 2010,3830
Institute for Nuclear Theory, Seattle/ v2 with minor changes, matches printed version.3831
[3] M. Gluck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Eur.Phys.J. C5, 461 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806404.3832
[4] P. Jimenez-Delgado and E. Reya, Phys. Rev. D79, 074023 (2009), arXiv:0810.4274.3833
[5] European Muon Collaboration, J. Ashman et al., Phys. Lett. B206, 364 (1988).3834
[6] P. Hagler, Phys. Rept. 490, 49 (2010), arXiv:0912.5483.3835
[7] A. V. Belitsky, X.-d. Ji, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D69, 074014 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0307383.3836
[8] M. Hillery, R. O’Connell, M. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Phys.Rept. 106, 121 (1984).3837
[9] Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov.Phys.JETP 46, 641 (1977).3838
[10] V. Gribov and L. Lipatov, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 15, 438 (1972).3839
[11] G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl.Phys. B126, 298 (1977).3840
[12] E. Zijlstra and W. van Neerven, Nucl.Phys. B417, 61 (1994).3841
[13] R. Mertig and W. van Neerven, Z.Phys. C70, 637 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506451.3842
[14] W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D54, 2023 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512218.3843
[15] A. Vogt, S. Moch, M. Rogal, and J. Vermaseren, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 183, 155 (2008),3844
arXiv:0807.1238.3845
[16] R. L. Jaffe and A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B337, 509 (1990).3846
[17] X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 610 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9603249.3847
[18] M. Wakamatsu, Phys. Rev. D81, 114010 (2010), arXiv:1004.0268.3848
[19] X. Ji, X. Xiong, and F. Yuan, (2012), arXiv:1202.2843.3849
[20] M. Wakamatsu, Nuovo Cim. C035N2, 247 (2012).3850
[21] European Muon Collaboration, J. Ashman et al., Nucl.Phys. B328, 1 (1989).3851
[22] F. Close and R. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1471 (1988).3852
[23] F. Close and R. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B316, 165 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9306289.3853
[24] Spin Muon Collaboration, B. Adeva et al., Phys. Rev. D58, 112001 (1998).3854
[25] COMPASS Collaboration, V. Alexakhin et al., Phys. Lett. B647, 8 (2007), arXiv:hep-3855
ex/0609038.3856
[26] COMPASS Collaboration, M. G. Alekseev et al., Phys. Lett. B690, 466 (2010),3857
arXiv:1001.4654.3858
140
[27] HERMES Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al., Phys. Lett. B404, 383 (1997), arXiv:hep-3859
ex/9703005.3860
[28] HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian et al., Phys. Rev. D75, 012007 (2007), arXiv:hep-3861
ex/0609039.3862
[29] Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration, X. Zheng et al., Phys. Rev. C70, 065207 (2004),3863
arXiv:nucl-ex/0405006.3864
[30] CLAS Collaboration, K. Dharmawardane et al., Phys. Lett. B641, 11 (2006), arXiv:nucl-3865
ex/0605028.3866
[31] E142 Collaboration, P. Anthony et al., Phys. Rev. D54, 6620 (1996), arXiv:hep-ex/9610007.3867
[32] E143 collaboration, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D58, 112003 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9802357.3868
[33] E154 Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 26 (1997), arXiv:hep-ex/9705012.3869
[34] E155 Collaboration, P. Anthony et al., Phys. Lett. B463, 339 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9904002.3870
[35] E155 Collaboration, P. Anthony et al., Phys. Lett. B493, 19 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007248.3871
[36] M. Hirai, S. Kumano, T.-H. Nagai, and K. Sudoh, Phys. Rev. D75, 094009 (2007), arXiv:hep-3872
ph/0702250.3873
[37] D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D76, 074033 (2007), arXiv:0707.1506.3874
[38] D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D75, 114010 (2007), arXiv:hep-3875
ph/0703242.3876
[39] S. Albino, B. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Nucl.Phys. B803, 42 (2008), arXiv:0803.2768.3877
[40] Spin Muon Collaboration, B. Adeva et al., Phys. Lett. B420, 180 (1998), arXiv:hep-3878
ex/9711008.3879
[41] COMPASS Collaboration, M. Alekseev et al., Phys. Lett. B660, 458 (2008), arXiv:0707.4077.3880
[42] COMPASS Collaboration, M. Alekseev et al., Phys. Lett. B693, 227 (2010), arXiv:1007.4061.3881
[43] HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian et al., Phys. Rev. D71, 012003 (2005), arXiv:hep-3882
ex/0407032.3883
[44] PHENIX Collaboration, S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 202002 (2004), arXiv:hep-3884
ex/0404027.3885
[45] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., Phys. Rev. D76, 051106 (2007), arXiv:0704.3599.3886
[46] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 012003 (2009), arXiv:0810.0694.3887
[47] STAR Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. D80, 111108 (2009), arXiv:0911.2773.3888
[48] STAR Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 252001 (2006), arXiv:hep-3889
ex/0608030.3890
[49] STAR Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 232003 (2008), arXiv:0710.2048.3891
[50] STAR Collaboration, M. Sarsour, AIP Conf.Proc. 1149, 389 (2009), arXiv:0901.4061.3892
[51] STAR Collaboration, P. Djawotho, J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 295, 012061 (2011).3893
[52] D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 0720013894
(2008), arXiv:0804.0422.3895
[53] D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D80, 034030 (2009),3896
arXiv:0904.3821.3897
[54] S. Kumano, Phys. Rept. 303, 183 (1998).3898
141
[55] G. Bunce, N. Saito, J. Soffer, and W. Vogelsang, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 50, 525 (2000),3899
arXiv:hep-ph/0007218, To be published in Dec. 2000 by Annual Reviews.3900
[56] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 062001 (2011), arXiv:1009.0505.3901
[57] STAR Collaboration, M. Aggarwal et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 062002 (2011),3902
arXiv:1009.0326.3903
[58] D. de Florian and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D81, 094020 (2010), arXiv:1003.4533.3904
[59] N. Cabibbo, E. C. Swallow, and R. Winston, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 53, 39 (2003), arXiv:hep-3905
ph/0307298.3906
[60] M. J. Savage and J. Walden, Phys. Rev. D55, 5376 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9611210.3907
[61] S.-L. Zhu, G. Sacco, and M. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D66, 034021 (2002), arXiv:hep-3908
ph/0201179.3909
[62] P. G. Ratcliffe, Czech.J.Phys. 54, B11 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402063.3910
[63] S. Sasaki and T. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. D79, 074508 (2009), arXiv:0811.1406.3911
[64] E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov, and D. B. Stamenov, Phys. Rev. D84, 014002 (2011),3912
arXiv:1103.5979.3913
[65] E. C. Aschenauer, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D86, 054020 (2012),3914
arXiv:1206.6014.3915
[66] L. Mankiewicz, A. Schafer, and M. Veltri, Comput.Phys.Commun. 71, 305 (1992).3916
[67] J. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. 179, 1547 (1969).3917
[68] M. Anselmino et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 295, 012062 (2011), arXiv:1012.3565.3918
[69] HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 012002 (2005), arXiv:hep-3919
ex/0408013.3920
[70] COMPASS Collaboration, M. Alekseev et al., Phys. Lett. B673, 127 (2009), arXiv:0802.2160.3921
[71] The Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration, X. Qian et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 072003 (2011),3922
arXiv:1106.0363, 6 pages, 2 figures, 2 tables, published in PRL.3923
[72] S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, and I. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B530, 99 (2002).3924
[73] J. C. Collins, Phys. Lett. B536, 43 (2002).3925
[74] A. V. Belitsky, X. Ji, and F. Yuan, Nucl. Phys. B656, 165 (2003).3926
[75] D. Boer, P. J. Mulders, and F. Pijlman, Nucl. Phys. B667, 201 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303034.3927
[76] X. Ji, J.-W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 082002 (2006).3928
[77] A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, M. Diehl, and P. J. Mulders, JHEP 08, 023 (2008).3929
[78] S. Meissner, A. Metz, and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D76, 034002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703176.3930
[79] J. Arrington, K. de Jager, and C. F. Perdrisat, J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 299, 012002 (2011),3931
arXiv:1102.2463.3932
[80] M. Strikman and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D69, 054012 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0308191.3933
[81] M. Strikman and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D80, 114029 (2009), arXiv:0906.3267.3934
[82] M. Burkardt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18, 173 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0207047.3935
[83] M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. C25, 223 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0205208.3936
[84] M. Burkardt, Nucl. Phys. A735, 185 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0302144.3937
[85] L. Gamberg and M. Schlegel, AIP Conf.Proc. 1374, 309 (2011), arXiv:1012.3395.3938
142
[86] M. Burkardt and G. Schnell, Phys. Rev. D74, 013002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510249.3939
[87] X.-D. Ji, J.Phys.G G24, 1181 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807358.3940
[88] M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D72, 094020 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505189.3941
[89] J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D56, 2982 (1997).3942
[90] J. C. Collins and A. Freund, Phys. Rev. D59, 074009 (1999).3943
[91] K. Kumericki, D. Mueller, and K. Passek-Kumericki, Nucl. Phys. B794, 244 (2008), arXiv:hep-3944
ph/0703179.3945
[92] A. Belitsky and A. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. 418, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504030.3946
[93] V. Braun and A. Manashov, (2011), arXiv:1111.6765.3947
[94] A. V. Belitsky, D. Mueller, and A. Kirchner, Nucl. Phys. B629, 323 (2002).3948
[95] B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, and J. Wagner, (2011), arXiv:1111.5913.3949
[96] D. Ivanov, A. Schafer, L. Szymanowski, and G. Krasnikov, Eur. Phys. J. C34, 297 (2004),3950
arXiv:hep-ph/0401131.3951
[97] M. Diehl and W. Kugler, Eur. Phys. J. C52, 933 (2007), arXiv:0708.1121.3952
[98] S. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur.Phys.J. C50, 829 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611290.3953
[99] M. Diehl, W. Kugler, A. Schafer, and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D72, 034034 (2005), arXiv:hep-3954
ph/0506171.3955
[100] S. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C53, 367 (2008), arXiv:0708.3569.3956
[101] S. Ahmad, G. R. Goldstein, and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D79, 054014 (2009), arXiv:0805.3568.3957
[102] S. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur.Phys.J. A47, 112 (2011), arXiv:1106.4897.3958
[103] N. Warkentin, M. Diehl, D. Ivanov, and A. Schafer, Eur.Phys.J. A32, 273 (2007), arXiv:hep-3959
ph/0703148.3960
[104] M. El Beiyad et al., Phys. Lett. B688, 154 (2010), arXiv:1001.4491.3961
[105] D. Amrath, M. Diehl, and J.-P. Lansberg, Eur.Phys.J. C58, 179 (2008), arXiv:0807.4474.3962
[106] K. Kumericki and D. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B841, 1 (2010), arXiv:0904.0458.3963
[107] M. Diehl, arXiv:1206.0844, Proceedings of DIS 2012.3964
[108] S. Fazio, Proceedings of DIS 2012.3965
[109] A. Bacchetta, U. D’Alesio, M. Diehl, and C. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D70, 117504 (2004),3966
arXiv:hep-ph/0410050.3967
[110] J. Bartels and H. Kowalski, Eur.Phys.J. C19, 693 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0010345.3968
[111] K. Kumericki and D. Muller, arXiv:1205.6967, Proceedings of DIS 2012.3969
[112] J. Koempel, P. Kroll, A. Metz, and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D85, 051502 (2012), arXiv:1112.1334.3970
[113] A. Malki et al., Phys. Rev. C65, 015207 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0005006.3971
[114] R. Subedi et al., Science 320, 1476 (2008), arXiv:0908.1514.3972
[115] L. Frankfurt, M. Sargsian, and M. Strikman, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A23, 2991 (2008),3973
arXiv:0806.4412.3974
[116] D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973).3975
[117] H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973).3976
[118] E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Lett. B510, 133 (2001).3977
143
[119] I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 822 (1978).3978
[120] E. Kuraev, L. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, 199 (1977).3979
[121] M. Froissart, Phys. Rev. 123, 1053 (1961).3980
[122] I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B463, 99 (1996).3981
[123] I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B463, 99 (1996).3982
[124] Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D60, 034008 (1999).3983
[125] Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D61, 074018 (2000).3984
[126] L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rept. 100, 1 (1983).3985
[127] A. H. Mueller and J. w. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. B268, 427 (1986).3986
[128] J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D59, 014014 (1998).3987
[129] J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D59, 034007 (1999).3988
[130] J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D59, 014015 (1999).3989
[131] E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A692, 583 (2001).3990
[132] E. Iancu, K. Itakura, and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A708, 327 (2002).3991
[133] A. H. Mueller and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B640, 331 (2002).3992
[134] L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D49, 2233 (1994).3993
[135] Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D54, 5463 (1996).3994
[136] J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D55, 5414 (1997).3995
[137] A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B335, 115 (1990).3996
[138] J. L. Albacete, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 262301 (2007).3997
[139] J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, J. G. Milhano, and C. A. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D80, 0340313998
(2009), arXiv:0902.1112.3999
[140] J. L. Albacete et al., arXiv:1012.4408.4000
[141] K. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D59, 014017 (1999).4001
[142] K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D60, 114023 (1999).4002
[143] J. Jalilian-Marian and Y. V. Kovchegov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56, 104 (2006).4003
[144] H. Weigert, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 55, 461 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0501087.4004
[145] E. Iancu and R. Venugopalan, Quark Gluon Plasma 3 (World Scientific, 2004), hep-4005
ph/0303204.4006
[146] F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venugopalan, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 60, 4634007
(2010), arXiv:1002.0333.4008
[147] Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Quantum Chromodynamics at High Energy (Cambridge Uni-4009
versity Press, 2012).4010
[148] H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D68, 114005 (2003).4011
[149] N. N. Nikolaev and B. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B332, 184 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403243.4012
[150] K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, JHEP 04, 065 (2009), arXiv:0902.4154.4013
[151] K. J. Eskola, V. J. Kolhinen, and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C9, 61 (1999).4014
[152] M. Hirai, S. Kumano, and T. H. Nagai, Phys. Rev. C76, 065207 (2007), arXiv:0709.3038.4015
144
[153] D. de Florian and R. Sassot, Phys. Rev. D69, 074028 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311227.4016
[154] I. Balitsky, Phys. Rev. D75, 014001 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609105.4017
[155] Y. V. Kovchegov and H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys. A784, 188 (2007).4018
[156] E. Gardi, J. Kuokkanen, K. Rummukainen, and H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys. A784, 282 (2007).4019
[157] J. L. Albacete and Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D75, 125021 (2007).4020
[158] L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rept. 160, 235 (1988).4021
[159] A. P. Bukhvostov, G. V. Frolov, L. N. Lipatov, and E. A. Kuraev, Nucl. Phys. B258, 6014022
(1985).4023
[160] J. Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat, and L. Motyka, Phys. Rev. D81, 054017 (2010), arXiv:0911.1935.4024
[161] K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D59, 014017 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807513.4025
[162] S. Munier, A. M. Stasto, and A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B603, 427 (2001).4026
[163] H. Abramowicz and A. Caldwell, Rev.Mod.Phys. 71, 1275 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9903037.4027
[164] A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 189 (2009),4028
arXiv:0901.0002.4029
[165] D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A748, 627 (2005).4030
[166] F. Dominguez, C. Marquet, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D83, 105005 (2011),4031
arXiv:1101.0715.4032
[167] F. Dominguez, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 022301 (2011).4033
[168] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 172301 (2011), arXiv:1105.5112.4034
[169] STAR Collaboration, E. Braidot, Nucl.Phys. A854, 168 (2011), arXiv:1008.3989.4035
[170] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175.4036
[171] S. Roesler, R. Engel, and J. Ranft, arXiv:hep-ph/0012252, hep-ph/0012252.4037
[172] B. Kopeliovich, Phys. Rev. C68, 044906 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306044.4038
[173] H. Kowalski, T. Lappi, C. Marquet, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C78, 045201 (2008),4039
arXiv:0805.4071.4040
[174] H. Kowalski, T. Lappi, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 022303 (2008).4041
[175] W. Buchmuller, M. McDermott, and A. Hebecker, Nucl.Phys. B487, 283 (1997), arXiv:hep-4042
ph/9607290.4043
[176] Y. V. Kovchegov and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D60, 054025 (1999).4044
[177] L. Frankfurt, V. Guzey, and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B586, 41 (2004).4045
[178] L. Frankfurt, V. Guzey, and M. Strikman, Phys.Rept. 512, 255 (2012), arXiv:1106.2091.4046
[179] H. Kowalski, L. Motyka, and G. Watt, Phys. Rev. D74, 074016 (2006).4047
[180] F. Aaron et al., Eur.Phys.J. C72, 1836 (2012).4048
[181] CLAS Collaboration, W. Brooks et al., AIP Conf.Proc. 1441, 211 (2012), arXiv:1110.3268.4049
[182] European Muon Collaboration, J. J. Aubert et al., Phys. Lett. B123, 275 (1983).4050
[183] J. W. Qiu and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 262301 (2004), hep-ph/0309094.4051
[184] D. d’Enterria, (2009), arXiv:0902.2011.4052
[185] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1480 (1992).4053
145
[186] X.-f. Guo and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3591 (2000).4054
[187] PHENIX Collaboration, S. Tarafdar, (2012), arXiv:1208.0456.4055
[188] T. Kneesch, B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and I. Schienbein, Nucl. Phys. B799, 34 (2008),4056
arXiv:0712.0481.4057
[189] B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Nemchik, E. Predazzi, and A. Hayashigaki, Nucl. Phys. A740, 2114058
(2004).4059
[190] A. Accardi, D. Grunewald, V. Muccifora, and H. J. Pirner, Nucl. Phys. A761, 67 (2005).4060
[191] X. Guo and J. Li, (2007), arXiv:0705.4211.4061
[192] E. Wang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 162301 (2002).4062
[193] B.-W. Zhang, E.-k. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Nucl.Phys. A757, 493 (2005), arXiv:hep-4063
ph/0412060.4064
[194] F. Caola, S. Forte, and J. Rojo, Nucl. Phys. A854, 32 (2011).4065
[195] BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 242303 (2004), arXiv:nucl-4066
ex/0403005, Four pages, four figures. Published in PRL. Figures 1 and 2 have been updated,4067
and several changes made to the text Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 242303.4068
[196] PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 172302 (2007).4069
[197] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 152302 (2006), arXiv:nucl-4070
ex/0602011.4071
[198] A. Dumitru, A. Hayashigaki, and J. Jalilian-Marian, Nucl.Phys. A765, 464 (2006), arXiv:hep-4072
ph/0506308.4073
[199] J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Nucl.Phys. A854, 154 (2011), arXiv:1009.3215.4074
[200] D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, and L. McLerran, Phys. Lett. B561, 93 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210332.4075
[201] J. L. Albacete et al., Phys. Rev. D71, 014003 (2005).4076
[202] D. Kharzeev, Y. V. Kovchegov, and K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. D68, 094013 (2003).4077
[203] D. Kharzeev, Y. V. Kovchegov, and K. Tuchin, Phys. Lett. B599, 23 (2004).4078
[204] V. Guzey, M. Strikman, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Lett. B603, 173 (2004), arXiv:hep-4079
ph/0407201.4080
[205] B. Kopeliovich et al., Phys. Rev. C72, 054606 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0501260.4081
[206] C. Marquet, Nucl. Phys. A796, 41 (2007).4082
[207] J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 162301 (2010).4083
[208] B. Z. Kopeliovich, A. V. Tarasov, and A. Schafer, Phys. Rev. C59, 1609 (1999), arXiv:hep-4084
ph/9808378.4085
[209] A. Accardi et al., arXiv:hep-ph/0308248.4086
[210] PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al., Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005).4087
[211] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005).4088
[212] PHOBOS Collaboration, B. B. Back et al., Nucl. Phys. A757, 28 (2005).4089
[213] BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene et al., Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005).4090
[214] M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A750, 30 (2005).4091
[215] I. Tserruya, (2011), arXiv:1110.4047.4092
[216] J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), hep-th/9711200.4093
146
[217] O. Aharony et al., Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000), hep-th/9905111.4094
[218] P. F. Kolb and U. W. Heinz, (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305084, Invited review for ’Quark Gluon4095
Plasma 3’. Editors: R.C. Hwa and X.N. Wang, World Scientific, Singapore.4096
[219] D. Teaney, J. Lauret, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4783 (2001), arXiv:nucl-4097
th/0011058.4098
[220] M. Luzum and P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. C79, 039903 (2009).4099
[221] A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D52, 6231 (1995), arXiv:hep-4100
ph/9502289.4101
[222] A. Krasnitz and R. Venugopalan, Nucl.Phys. B557, 237 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809433.4102
[223] S. Mrowczynski, Phys. Lett. B314, 118 (1993).4103
[224] P. B. Arnold, J. Lenaghan, and G. D. Moore, JHEP 0308, 002 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307325,4104
Erratum added online, sep/29/2004.4105
[225] Y. V. Kovchegov, (2011), arXiv:1112.5403.4106
[226] P. M. Chesler and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 021601 (2011), arXiv:1011.3562.4107
[227] J. Bartels, K. J. Golec-Biernat, and H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D66, 014001 (2002).4108
[228] J. L. Albacete and A. Dumitru, arXiv:arXiv:1011.5161 [hep-ph]., arXiv:1011.5161.4109
[229] PHOBOS Collaboration, B. B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C65, 061901 (2002).4110
[230] The ALICE, B. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252301 (2010), arXiv:1011.3916.4111
[231] B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, (2012), arXiv:1206.6805.4112
[232] B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, (2012), arXiv:1202.6646.4113
[233] J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D46, 229 (1992).4114
[234] D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, and M. Nardi, Nucl. Phys. A743, 329 (2004).4115
[235] G. Policastro, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 081601 (2001), hep-4116
th/0104066.4117
[236] P. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 111601 (2005), hep-4118
th/0405231.4119
[237] B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C85, 024901 (2012), arXiv:1109.6289.4120
[238] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 252301 (2011), arXiv:1105.3928.4121
[239] C. Marquet and H. Weigert, Nucl.Phys. A843, 68 (2010), arXiv:1003.0813.4122
[240] HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian et al., Nucl. Phys. B780, 1 (2007).4123
[241] W. K. Brooks and H. Hakobyan, Nucl. Phys. A830, 361c (2009).4124
[242] B. Kopeliovich, J. Nemchik, and E. Predazzi, arXiv:nucl-th/9607036, nucl-th/9607036.4125
[243] HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian et al., Eur.Phys.J. C20, 479 (2001), arXiv:hep-4126
ex/0012049.4127
[244] W.-t. Deng and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C81, 024902 (2010), arXiv:0910.3403.4128
[245] L. A. Anchordoqui, A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, D. Hooper, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D74, 0430084129
(2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605086.4130
[246] H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al., Eur. Phys. J. C11, 447 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9907002.4131
[247] ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Eur. Phys. J. C44, 463 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0501070.4132
147
[248] H1 Collaboration, A. Aktas et al., Eur. Phys. J. C52, 833 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0703004.4133
[249] C. H. Albright and M.-C. Chen, Phys. Rev. D77, 113010 (2008), arXiv:0802.4228.4134
[250] W. Buchmuller, R. Ruckl, and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B191, 442 (1987).4135
[251] M. Gonderinger and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP 1011, 045 (2010), arXiv:1006.5063.4136
[252] D. Boer et al., (2011), arXiv:1108.1713.4137
[253] M. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C60, 015501 (1999).4138
[254] R. D. Young, R. D. Carlini, A. W. Thomas, and J. Roche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 122003 (2007).4139
[255] M. R. Buckley and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, (2012).4140
[256] F. Jacquet and A. Blondel, DESY 79/48 (1979), in Proceedings of the Study of an ep facility4141
for Europe, U. Amaldi (ed.).4142
[257] U. Bassler and G. Bernardi, NIM A361, 197 (1995), arXiv:hep-ex/9412004.4143
[258] http://www.desy.de/~pol2000/Welcome.html.4144
[259] https://wiki.bnl.gov/rhicspin/Polarimetry.4145
[260] G. Gaycken et al., NIM A560, 44 (2006).4146
[261] C. Hu-Guo et al., JINST 4, P04012 (2009).4147
148