text:
# T-violating triple product asymmetries in Λ_𝑏→Λ𝜋⁺𝜋⁻ decay

## Abstract

We study $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The branching fraction is predicted to be about 4.4 $`\times 10^8`$. Within the standard model, we compute $`T`$-odd triple product asymmetries to be about 1.4, 4.3, 6.5 and 7.2% respectively due to $`\stackrel{}{s}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b,\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{p}_\pi )`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\pi }(\stackrel{}{s}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{s}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})`$.

PACS number(s): 11.30.Er, 13.30.Eg, 14.20.Mr

In this paper, we consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay and study $`T`$-odd triple product correlations (TPC’s). As has been discussed in , the presence of a nonzero TPC of the form $`\stackrel{}{v}_1(\stackrel{}{v}_2\times \stackrel{}{v}_3)`$, where $`\stackrel{}{v}_i`$’s are spin or momentum, is given by

$$A_T=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{v}_1(\stackrel{}{v}_2\times \stackrel{}{v}_3)>0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{v}_1(\stackrel{}{v}_2\times \stackrel{}{v}_3)<0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{v}_1(\stackrel{}{v}_2\times \stackrel{}{v}_3)>0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{v}_1(\stackrel{}{v}_2\times \stackrel{}{v}_3)<0)}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the decay rate in question. In order to see that the the TPC is indeed caused by weak phase, it is expressed in comparison with that of the corresponding conjucate mode, $`\overline{A}_T`$, as triple product asymmetry (TPA)

$`𝒜_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_T\overline{A}_T)`$ (2)
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta `$ (3)
$`\varphi (\delta )`$ is weak (strong) phase. Thus, TPA is maximal in the vanishing limit of the strong phase. In $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_bpP(V)`$ where $`P(V)`$ is pseudoscalar (vector) meson, T-odd triple correlations give rise to an asymmetry of about $`O(10\%)`$ in certain decays while in some at $`O(1\%)`$ . However, in beyond standard model scenarios the TPA is about 50% or so . Thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays provides better opportunity to study CP/T violating effects. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$-spin and the final state baryon spin are obervable in terms of which physics of the standard model and beyond it can be investigated. In the two-body decay mode, i. e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_bpP`$, TPC’s necessarily involve the polarisation of both baryons. Whereas in three-body final state such as one we consider, TPC’s are constituted by either of the baryon polarisations, (besides cases involving both). This is more feasible experimentally, despite the size being relatively smaller, than the one with two polarisations. On the other hand, with the most of the $`b`$ quark polarisation being carried by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ baryon, polarisation of final state baryon alone can be considered in the search for CP violating effects. Hopefully, at the future colliders BTeV, LHC-b, production of about $`10^{10}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b`$ pairs would facilitate such studies. In this work, we describe the decay using factorisation and obtain the branching ratio. Then, we look for the following TPC’s: $`\stackrel{}{s}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b,\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{p}_\pi )`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\pi }(\stackrel{}{s}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{s}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})`$. The effective Hamiltonion for $`bu\overline{u}s`$ which underlies the decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (see  for other modes) is

$$_{eff}=\frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_22V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}(a_3a_5)\right\}(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b_\alpha )(\overline{u}_\beta \gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)u_\beta )$$
(4)
where of the Wilson coefficients $`a_i`$’s, $`a_2`$ comes from tree level operators and $`a_{3,5}`$ from QCD penguins . The invariant amplitude for the hadronic process $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is, then,

$$M=(X+Y)q^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b$$
(5)
where

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}}F^{\pi \pi }(q^2)V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_2`$ (6)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}}F^{\pi \pi }(q^2)V_{td}V_{ts}^{}(a_3a_5)`$ (7)
with $`a_2c_2^{eff}+c_1^{eff}/N_c`$ and $`a_{3(5)}c_{3(5)}^{eff}+c_{4(6)}^{eff}/N_c`$ and $`F^{\pi \pi }(q^2)=[1q^2/m_{\pi \pi }^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma /m_{\pi \pi }]^1`$. In the following, we take the Wilson coefficients, $`a_i`$, in the limit $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ and for numerical values we follow the works in . And for the form factor $`F^{\pi \pi }(q^2)`$, we use $`m_{\pi \pi }m_\sigma =0.7GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =0.2GeV`$. The matrix elements between baryons are parametrized in heavy quark effective theory as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=\overline{u}_\mathrm{\Lambda }[F_1+v/F_2]\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}$$
(8)
where $`v=p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ and $`F_1=0.473`$ and $`F_2=0.117`$ as predicted in QCD sum rules analysis  that satisfy the bound  $`F_2/F_10.25`$ . The invariant amplitude squared with all spins averaged, letting pion mass to vanish, using eq. (8), from eq. (5) is

$`|MM^{}|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_f^2}{2}}[F^{\pi \pi }(q^2)]^2\{|V_{ub}V_{us}^{}|^2a_2^2+4|V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}|^2(a_3a_5)^24|V_{ub}V_{us}V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}|a_2(a_3a_5)\}`$ (10)
$`\times [F_1^2+F_1F_2(1+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})+F_2^2](m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}+m_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$
On performing the integration using RAMBOWe thank Prof. D. London for providing the programme., the prediction for the branching ratio is

$$BR(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+\pi ^{})4.4\times 10^8$$
(11)
Like CP asymmetry, TP asymmetry does arise when two amplitudes interfere, provided their weak phases are different from one another. The size of the TPA depends on the relative magnitudes of the coefficients $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in eqs. (6) and (7). On looking for TPC’s in this process, we obtain from eq. (5) the following

$`|MM^{}|_1^{Todd}`$ $`=`$ $`16\xi F_2^2[(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }E_\pi +(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }E_\pi ]\widehat{𝐩}_\pi (\widehat{𝐬}_𝚲\times \widehat{𝐬}_{𝚲_𝐛})`$ (12)
$`|MM^{}|_2^{Todd}`$ $`=`$ $`3\xi (2F_2^2F_1F_2)(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{𝐩}_𝚲(\widehat{𝐬}_𝚲\times \widehat{𝐬}_{𝚲_𝐛})`$ (13)
$`|MM^{}|_3^{Todd}`$ $`=`$ $`12\xi F_2^2(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }E_\pi \widehat{𝐬}_𝚲(\widehat{𝐩}_\pi \times \widehat{𝐩}_𝚲)`$ (14)
$`|MM^{}|_4^{Todd}`$ $`=`$ $`4\xi F_2^2(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }E_\pi \widehat{𝐬}_{𝚲_𝐛}(\widehat{𝐩}_\pi \times \widehat{𝐩}_𝚲)`$ (15)
where the subcripts denote labelling the amplitude squared referring to the TPC in the right hand side and

$$\xi =2G_f^2a_2(a_3a_5)[F^{\pi \pi }(q^2)]^2Im[V_{ub}V_{us}^{}V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}e^{i\delta }]$$
(16)
We find the magnitude of the TPA’s corresponding to each of the TPC’s:

$`𝒜_T^1=7.2\%`$ (17)
$`𝒜_T^2=6.5\%`$ (18)
$`𝒜_T^3=4.3\%`$ (19)
$`𝒜_T^4=1.4\%`$ (20)
where we have assumed $`\delta =0`$ and expressed the weak phase in terms of Wolfenstein parameters and one of them $`\eta =0.35`$. We can now see that the TPA corresponding to a TPC involving two polarisation vector is larger in magnitude as expected of than the one involving single polarisation. In conclusion, we have found the branching ratio of the decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and computed TPA in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. We have earlier  pointed out that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spin constituted TPC appear within the standard model. The same is expected to hold in this decay. The present predictions for TPA except the one in eq. (20) are accessible in a collider with $`10^{10}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b`$ pair production.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is financially supported by the National Science Council of Republic of China under the contract number NSC-91-2112-M-007-043.


format: text

text:
# First-principles study on field evaporation for silicon atom on Si(001) surface

## I Introduction

In recent years, scanning tunneling microscopy experiments in the atomic-scale manipulation of material surfaces have attracted great attention due to its potential to create artificial surface nanostructures. It is now possible to remove adsorbed atoms and molecules from surfaces or to deposit them on surfaces by applying voltage pulses a . Field evaporation tsong  and deposition are thermally activated processes in which rate constants can be parameterized according to the Arrhenius formula Arrhenius . In addition, the electric field between probing tip and surface plays a crucial role during these processes, since the activation energy for field evaporation is considered to depend on this electric field. In the past, phenomenological models have been used to evaluate the activation energy for field evaporation of surface atoms tsong . However, in order to understand this phenomenon properly from a microscopic point of view, it is mandatory to calculate self-consistently both the electronic charge distribution and the resulting electrostatic field.

In this paper, we carry out first-principles molecular-dynamics simulations to explore the activation energies and threshold values of external electric fields for the evaporation of surface atoms from Si(001) surfaces. Five years ago, Kawai et al. kawai  determined the adiabatic potential curves for adsorbed atoms on the atomically flat Si(001) surface, however, the maximum external electric field of $``$ 2.6 V/Å applied in their simulation is rather small compared to that in experiments using field ion microscopy (3.8 V/Å) tsong . We now determine activation energies for silicon atoms on Si(001) surfaces under the stronger electric fields of 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 V/Å. Moreover, we examine differences in activation energies and threshold values of external electric fields among silicon atoms evaporating from various Si(001) surfaces, e.g., the atomically flat surface, the surface having a step, and the atomically flat surface with an adsorbed silicon atom. We find that the threshold value for field evaporation of the atom on the atomically flat Si(001) surface, which is between 3.0 and 3.5 V/Å, is the lowest and that for the surface atom in the atomically flat surface, which is over 4.0 V/Å, is the highest. These results will be explained in terms of binding energies between evaporating atoms and surfaces.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Sec. II, we describe briefly the computational details of our calculations. The results are presented and discussed in Sec. III. We conclude our findings in Sec. IV.

## II Computational details

### II.1 Method

Our first-principles molecular-dynamics simulations are based on the real-space finite-difference method chelikowsky  with incorporation of the timesaving double-grid technique tsdg . Compared with the plane-wave approach, the real-space finite-difference method is much simpler to implement while keeping a high degree of accuracy. Moreover, the real-space calculations eliminate the serious drawbacks of the conventional plane-wave approach such as its inability to describe strictly nonperiodic systems: in the case of simulations under external electric fields, the periodic boundary condition gives rise to saw-tooth potential, which sometimes leads to numerical instability during the self-consistent iteration, while the real-space finite-difference method can exactly determine the potential by the external electric field as a boundary condition and is free from involving the saw-tooth potential. We adopt the nine-point finite-difference formula for the derivative arising from the kinetic-energy operator of the Kohn-Sham equation in the density functional theory hks . We take a cutoff energy of 23 Ry, which corresponds to a grid spacing of 0.65 a.u., and a higher cutoff energy of 210 Ry in the vicinity of nuclei with the augmentation of double-grid points tsdg . The norm conserving pseudopotential pseudop ; kobayashi  is employed in a Kleinman-Bylander nonlocal form kleinman-bylander . Exchange-correlation effects are treated with local density approximation lda .

### II.2 Models

Figure 1 shows the top views of the Si(001) surfaces calculated here. We employ a technique that involves the use of a supercell whose size is chosen as $`L_x`$=43.52 a.u., $`L_y`$=14.51 a.u. and $`L_z`$=32.64 a.u., where $`L_x`$, $`L_y`$ and $`L_z`$ are the lengths of the supercell in the $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions, respectively. Here the direction perpendicular to the surface was chosen as the $`z`$ direction. In order to eliminate completely unfavorable effects of atoms in neighbor cells which are artificially repeated in the case of the periodic boundary condition, we impose the nonperiodic boundary condition of vanishing wave functions out of the supercell in the $`z`$ direction, while we adopt the periodic boundary condition in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. The supercell contains five silicon layers, the lowest of which is terminated by hydrogen atoms (i.e., the thin film model). The atoms in the three topmost silicon layers are fully optimized by the first-principles molecular-dynamics simulation. In the cases of an atomically flat surface \[terrace model in Fig. 1 (a)\] and a surface having a step \[$`S_A`$ step model in Fig. 1 (b)\], we employ previously reported atomic configurations si22 . On the other hand, for the atomically flat surface where an atom is adsorbed \[adatom models in Figs. 1 (c) and (d)\], we determine the minimum-energy atomic configuration. The atom is initially placed at each of the sites of A, B, C, D, E, F, and G in Fig. 1 with an appropriate distance from the surface, and then the forces on the atoms are relieved during the structural optimization. The total energies are collected in Table 1. The most stable site is found to be site E in Fig. 1 (d), and hereafter we use this configuration as the adatom model.

## III Results and discussion

### III.1 Field evaporation of surface atoms

We first apply an external electric field $`F`$ of 3.0 V/Å along the $`z`$ direction and find that no surface atoms evaporate in any models. When the external electric field $`F`$ is increased to 3.5 V/Å, the adsorbed atom in the adatom model evaporates \[see Fig. 2 (a)\]. On the basis of these results, it is evident that the threshold value of the external electric field for evaporation is 3.0-3.5 V/Å. This value is in agreement with the experimental data of 3.8 V/Å obtained using a field ion microscope. In the case of $`F`$=4.0 V/Å, the two upper atoms of the buckled dimers located at the step edges simultaneously evaporate in the $`S_A`$ step model \[see Fig. 2 (b)\] comment1 . The surface atoms in the $`S_A`$ step model are preferentially removed from the step edges. No surface atoms in the terrace model evaporate at all below $`F`$=4.0 V/Å.

### III.2 Activation energy

One of the potentially important applications of the field-evaporation process is the direct determination of the binding strengths of the surface atoms from the external electric field required for their removal. We now evaluate the activation energies of surface atoms for field evaporation during the lifting up of the surface atoms. Table 2 shows the activation energies for various surface models comment2 . The activation energies in the absence of the external electric field, which are equal to the binding energies between evaporating atoms and surfaces, are observed to be 6.03, 5.86, and 5.04 eV for the terrace, $`S_A`$ step, and adatom model, respectively. These energies become lower as the external electric fields are increased. The threshold value of the external electric field varies with the bond strength of the surface atom, and the rate constants of field evaporation depend on the activation energies according to the Arrhenius formula Arrhenius ; surface atoms in both the $`S_A`$ step model and the adatom model are easily removed compared with the surface atom in the terrace model. This situation may lead to the development of technology to create atomically flat surfaces by applying the external electric fields to surfaces and adjusting the temperature.

### III.3 Local-field enhancement

Figure 3 shows the electron density shift $`\rho (𝐫,F)\rho (𝐫,F=0)`$ due to the application of the external electric field of $`F`$=3.5 V/Åcomment3 . The overall charge around the surface atoms decreases, and the atom is expected to be a positive ion when it evaporates. We then calculate the external electrostatic field as the difference between the total electrostatic field in the presence of an external electric field and that in the absence of it, $`d(V_{eff}(𝐫,F)V_{eff}(𝐫,F=0))/dz`$, where $`V_{eff}`$ is the sum of the external, Hartree, and exchange-correlation potential functions. Figure 4 shows the counter plots of the difference in external electrostatic field comment3 . The expulsion of the external electronic field from inside the surface can be clearly recognized in all models. However the local-field enhancement occurs not around the evaporating atom but above it, and no further significant difference in external electrostatic field around the evaporating atom is observed. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the local field around the evaporating atom plays a crucial role in the situation mentioned above in Sec. III.1.

## IV Conclusion

We have studied the field-evaporation process of surface atoms by using various surface models. The threshold value of the external electric field for evaporation of the surface atom on the atomically flat Si(001) surface, which is between 3.0 and 3.5 V/Å and is in agreement with the experimental result of 3.8 V/Å, is the lowest among the models in this study, and no surface atoms of the atomically flat Si(001) surface evaporate below the external electric field of 4.0 V/Å. When the external electric field is applied to the surface having a $`S_A`$ step, the atoms which are located at the step edges are preferentially removed. The threshold value of the external electric field obviously depends on the binding energy between evaporating atoms and surfaces. Moreover, as the external electric field increases, the activation energy for field evaporation becomes lower. On the basis of the discussions above, we conclude that the field-evaporation process can be applied to surface-flattening techniques iwasaki  or atomic-scale manipulation methods eigler1 ; lyo ; eigler2  by adjusting the strength of the external electric field and the temperature.

## Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Grant-in-Aid for COE Research (Grant No. 08CE2004) and Young Scientists (B) (Grant No. 14750022). The numerical calculation was carried out by the computer facilities at the Institute for Solid State Physics at the University of Tokyo, and Okazaki National Institute.


text:
# Zeros of the order parameter of 𝑑_{𝑥²-𝑦²} superconducting film in the presence of uniform current

## Abstract

We show that additional $`p`$-wave component is generated in the pure $`d`$-wave superconductor in the presence of the uniform current. When the current flows in the antinodal direction the spectrum has a gap over all Fermi surface. If the current flows in the nodal direction, the gap opens only in the direction parallel to the current. The correction to the current due to the $`p`$-wave component of the order parameter is linear in vector potential. We show, that the spin-orbit coupling is responsible for the additional component of the order parameter.

Recently it was proposed that classification of the order parameter in the ferromagnetic superconductor may be performed in accordance with corepresentations of nonunitary magnetic group. Similar approach was used in Ref. to consider the effect of broken time-reversal symmetry at $`T^{}`$ on the superconducting state in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. Here we would like to extend this type of analysis for the case of a $`d`$-wave superconductor with uniform current or/and the external magnetic field.

There is a common belief that the high temperature superconductors have nontrivial order parameter transforming as $`B_{1g}`$ ($`x^2y^2`$) representation of $`D_{4h}`$ point group. When external magnetic field is applied the symmetry of the order parameter is reduced. As a result, for magnetic field directed along the c-axis the new order parameter has the form: $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$. Furthermore, additional component of the order parameter may be induced by the surface. Since any surface breaks inversion symmetry, additional $`p`$ wave component is generated near the surface due to the surface induced spin orbit coupling. In the following we show, that a constant superconducting current reduces the symmetry of the order parameter to $`d_{x^2y^2}+ip_x`$ when the current is directed along the x-axis. Such form of the order parameter is consistent with the group theory analysis and may be generated by the spin-orbit coupling. We will construct the corresponding invariant terms in the free energy and show how $`p`$-wave is generated from the microscopic BCS theory.

Since a constant superfluid current is a real vector that changes sign under time reversal transformation, the total $`D_{4h}`$ group will be reduced to nonunitary (magnetic) group $`D_{2h}(C_{2v})`$. We consider for simplicity that superfluid current is directed along the $`x`$-axis. Unitary subgroup $`C_{2v}`$ has four elements $`E,C_{2x},\sigma _h,\sigma _y`$ and four representations $`A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2`$. In accordance with the general theory of corepresentations all 4 irreducible representations belong to the class ’a’. This means that each irreducible representation generates one nonequivalent corepresentation of the nonunitary group. All corepresentations are one dimensional and are listed in the Table 1 together with the basis functions.

Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ are real numbers and $`ϵ=\mathrm{exp}(2i\varphi )`$ where $`\varphi `$ is real. Following Ref. we introduced factor 2 in the exponent. To clarify the derivation of basis functions in Table 1 we construct the basis function for the $`A_1`$ corepresentation. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )(k_x^2k_y^2)`$ transforms as the $`A_1`$ representation of the unitary subgroup as well as corresponding corepresentation of the nonunitary group. Since the group in the presence of uniform current does not have the center of inversion, a mixture of singlet and triplet order parameter is possible. The general expression for the triplet part of the order parameter has the following form:

$$𝚿_1=\widehat{x}f_x(k_x,k_y)+\widehat{y}f_y(k_x,k_y)+\widehat{z}f_z(k_x,k_y)$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{x},\widehat{y},\widehat{z}`$ are spin unit vectors in the $`𝐚,𝐛,𝐜`$ axis directions respectively. The functions $`f_{x,y,z}(k_x,k_y)`$ are odd with respect to the $`𝐤`$ $``$ $`𝐤`$ transformation. Applying the $`\sigma _h`$ operation to $`f_{x,y}(k_x,k_y)`$ we obtain that $`f_{x,y}(k_x,k_y)=f_{x,y}(k_x,k_y)`$ for $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ representations. Therefore $`f_{x,y}(k_x,k_y)=0`$ for $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ cases. Applying all operations from Table 1 to the remaining function $`f_z(k_x,k_y)`$ we obtain the following set of equations:

$`f_z(k_x,k_y)=f_z(k_x,k_y)`$ (2)
$`f_z(k_x,k_y)^{}=ϵf_z(k_x,k_y)`$ (3)
$`f_z(k_x,k_y)^{}=ϵf_z(k_x,k_y)`$ (4)
It is easy to see that the function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(k_x,k_y)=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )(d_{x^2y^2}+i\eta p_x)$$
(5)
where $`p_x=\widehat{z}k_y`$ satisfies all the equations and transforms as the $`A_1`$ corepresentation of the nonunitary group $`D_{2h}(C_{2v})`$. This means that the uniform current in the $`x`$ direction generates the $`p_x`$ wave contribution to the gap function. The gap function in that case is defined as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(k_x,k_y)=i(d_{x^2y^2}+i\eta \sigma _3k_y)\sigma _2`$. Since $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\widehat{\sigma }_0`$ the corresponding phase is unitary and the gap in the excitation spectrum is determined by $`|d_{x^2y^2}|^2+\eta ^2k_y^2`$. As a result, the gap is fully developed over all Fermi surface.

Let us show that the term in the free energy:

$$i\eta ^{^{}}(v_xp_xv_yp_y)d_{x^2y^2}^{}+c.c.,$$
(6)
is an invariant of the group $`D_{4h}`$. Here $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ is a real constant and $`(v_x,v_y)`$ are components of the superfluid velocity. Indeed, $`(v_x,v_y)`$ and $`(p_x,p_y)`$ transform as the $`E_u`$ representations of the group $`D_{4h}`$. Since the direct product $`E_u\times E_u=A_{1g}+A_{2g}+B_{1g}+B_{2g}`$ contains $`B_{1g}`$($`d_{x^2y^2}`$) representation, Eq.(4) represents the true scalar. The presence of $`i`$ in Eq(4) is important since the superfluid current is antisymmetric with respect to the time reversal symmetry.

The existence of the $`p`$ component of the order parameter in the presence of the supercurrent may be seen if we write relevant Lifshitz invariant in the free energy :

$$F=F_d+i\eta ^{^{\prime \prime }}(\psi _d^{}(D_xp_xD_yp_y)\psi _d(D_x^{}p_x^{}D_y^{}p_y^{}))+\alpha _p(|p_x|^2+|p_y|^2)$$
(7)
where $`D_l=i_l2eA_l`$ ($`l=x,y,z`$), $`𝐀`$ is a vector potential, and $`F_d`$ is the free energy for the $`d`$-wave superconductor without curren. Assuming that $`\psi _d=\psi _{d0}exp(imvx)`$ and $`(p_x,p_y)=(p_x,0)exp(imvx)`$ we obtain a contribution to the free energy, which is similar to Eq.(4). By minimizing Eq.(5) with respect to $`p_x`$ we obtain the amplitude of the p-component of the order parameter: $`p_x=i\eta ^{^{\prime \prime }}mv\psi _d/\alpha _p`$.

When the current is flowing in the nodal direction, $`B_{1g}`$($`x^2y^2`$) representation of the $`D_{4h}`$ group is no longer $`A_1`$ corepresentation of the reduced nonunitary group. Group theoretical analysis for this case is presented in Table 2. It should be pointed out that this case is similar to the case II considered in the Ref..

Similarly to the case when the current flows in the $`x`$ direction, the corresponding phase is unitary: $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\widehat{\sigma }_0`$, and the gap function has the form: $`|d_{x^2y^2}|^2+a^2(k_x+k_y)^2`$. Contrary to the previous case, however, gap opens only in the direction parallel to the current, and the spectrum remains gapless in the direction perpendicular to the current.

Let us now discuss the correction to the current when the additional component of the order parameter is generated. It is easy to see from Eq.(5) that the additional contribution to the current is given by:

$$j_x=j_{dx}+2ie\eta ^{^{\prime \prime }}(\psi _d^{}p_x\psi _dp_x^{})$$
(8)
Substituting $`p_x=i\eta ^{^{\prime \prime }}mv\psi _d/\alpha _p`$ to the last equation and taking into account that in the quasiclassical limit $`mv=2eA`$, correction to the supercurrent has the form:

$$𝐣=𝐣_d+4e^2\eta ^{^{\prime \prime 2}}𝐀|\psi _d|^2/\alpha _p$$
(9)
At this point we should point out that usually the nonlinear London equation is discussed in the case of the $`d`$-wave superconductors with the nodes in the spectrum. Nonlinear corrections to the London equation appear due to the Doppler shift of the spectrum in the presence of the superflow. As a result, in some regions of the Fermi surface the excitation energy becomes negative leading to the finite quasiparticle current. However, as we have shown here, the generation of the $`p`$-wave component of the order parameter in the presence of the superflow leads to the correction to the supercurrent which is $`linear`$ in the vector potential. Opening of the $`p`$ wave component of the order parameter leads to the linear in current correction to the penetration depth and could be detected experimentally.

At the end we suggest one possible microscopic mechanism, which causes the appearance of the $`p`$-component of the order parameter in the presence of uniform current. We assume that current flows along the $`x`$ axis. Spin-orbit coupling in that case could be written as

$`H_{so}=i\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\psi _𝐤^{}[𝐯\times _𝐤]_z\sigma _3\psi _𝐤`$

where $`v`$ is the superfluid velocity and $`\gamma `$ is the spin-orbit coupling constant. Following Balatsky we can calculate the correction to the anomalous Green function $`\widehat{F}(𝐤,\omega )=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0(𝐤)/D(𝐤,\omega )`$, where $`D(𝐤,\omega )=\omega ^2+\xi (𝐤)^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐤)|^2`$, using perturbation theory due to the interaction $`H_{so}`$. The first correction to $`\widehat{F}^0(𝐤,\omega )`$ is:

$`\delta \widehat{F}(𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma v\widehat{G^0}(𝐤,\omega )_{k_y}\sigma _3\widehat{F}^0(𝐤,\omega )`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`i\gamma v{\displaystyle \frac{(i\omega \xi (𝐤))\sigma _3}{D(𝐤,\omega )^2}}\mathrm{sin}(k_y)i\sigma _2`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`i\gamma v{\displaystyle \frac{(i\omega +\xi (𝐤))\sigma _1}{D(𝐤,\omega )^2}}\mathrm{sin}(k_y)`$ (12)
Here we take into account that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_y))i\sigma _2`$, and $`\widehat{G^0}(𝐤,\omega )=(i\omega \xi (𝐤))\sigma _0/D(𝐤,\omega )`$. To estimate the $`p`$-wave correction to the order parameter we assume a repulsive separable interaction in the following form: $`V_y(𝐤,𝐤^{^{}})=V_y\mathrm{sin}(k_y)\mathrm{sin}(k_y^{^{}})`$ As a result, the correction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐤)`$ is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega ,𝐤}{}}V_y\mathrm{sin}(k_y)\mathrm{sin}(k_y^{^{}})\delta \widehat{F}(𝐤^{^{}},\omega )`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`iC\gamma v{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{E_F}}N_0V_y\mathrm{sin}(k_y)\sigma _1`$ (14)
Here $`C`$ is a real constant of the order of 1, and $`N_0`$ is the density of states at the Fermi surface.

In conclusion, we have shown, that additional $`p`$ wave component appears in the case of $`d`$-wave superconductor in the presence of uniform supercurrent. This effect leads to the additional contribution to the current linear in the vector potential. It is shown that spin orbit coupling is responsible for this effect.

I am grateful to A.S. Alexandrov, A. Balatsky, D.F. Agterberg, D. Mihailovic, T. Mertelj, and J. Demsar for useful discussions.


text:
# Why the observed jet quenching at RHIC is due to parton energy loss

## I Introduction

More than a decade after the original proposal  of jet quenching due to radiative parton energy loss, conclusive experimental evidence has been found in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at the Relativistic Heavy-ion Collider (RHIC) not only from the suppression of high-$`p_T`$ single inclusive hadron spectra  but also the suppression of back-side jet-like correlations . The latter provides direct evidence for medium modification of the parton fragmentation functions . More recent results of $`d+Au`$ collisions  further prove that the observed jet quenching is due to final-state interactions with the produced medium. Initial-state scatterings in cold nuclei only broaden the initial transverse momentum, leading to the Cronin enhancement of intermediate high-$`p_T`$ hadron spectra as was first predicted for $`p+A`$ collisions at RHIC .

The original proposal of jet quenching in a dense (or normal) nuclear medium  was based on the idea that radiative energy loss during the propagation of an energetic parton must suppress the leading hadron distributions inside a jet. This leads to medium modification of the jet fragmentation functions  and suppression of the high-$`p_T`$ hadron spectra in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. Such medium-induced radiative parton energy loss has since been studied in detail and in many different approaches  in QCD that include the non-Abelian Laudau-Pomerachuck-Migdal (LPM) interference effect. The energy loss was found to be proportional to the gluon density of the medium. It was further predicted that jet quenching due to parton energy loss should also lead to the azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_T`$ hadron spectra in non-central heavy-ion collisions , which has been observed  at RHIC.

Phenomenological studies of hadron spectra based on parton energy loss have found that the observed suppression of high-$`p_T`$ single hadron spectra implies large parton energy loss or high initial gluon density . The same parton energy loss is also found to reproduce the observed suppression of back-side correlation  and the high-$`p_T`$ azimuthal anisotropy . Most importantly, the calculated centrality dependences of the suppression of both single hadron spectra and back-side correlation agree very well with the experimental measurements . The deduced initial gluon density at an initial time $`\tau _0=0.2`$ fm/$`c`$ is found to be about 30 times of that in a normal nuclear matter . If the transverse energy per particle is 0.5 GeV , the above gluon density will correspond to an initial energy density of $`ϵ=15`$ GeV/fm3, which is about 100 times of the energy density in a cold nuclear matter. In addition, the measured large azimuthal anisotropy for soft hadrons is found to saturate the hydrodynamic limit . These experimental results all point to an initial medium that is strongly interacting and has a large initial pressure gradient. Within our current understanding of QCD, such a strongly interacting medium with about 100 times normal nuclear energy density can no longer be a normal hadronic matter.

The aforementioned analyses of RHIC data on jet quenching are all based on a picture in which partons propagating through the dense medium lose energy first and then hadronize outside in the same way as in the vacuum. It is reasonable to ask whether leading hadrons from the jet fragmentation could have strong interaction with the medium and whether hadron absorption could be the main cause for the observed jet quenching. This paper will provide arguments against such a scenario in detail and list experimental evidence that the observed patterns of jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC can only be the consequences of parton energy loss, not hadronic absorption.

## II Hadron formation time

Fragmentation of a parton into hadrons involves mainly non-perturbative physics in QCD and thus is not calculable within perturbative QCD (pQCD). One can, nevertheless, use pQCD to calculate the evolution of the fragmentation process due to short distance interaction when the virtuality of the parton is larger than $`Q_01`$ GeV. Such perturbative processes can take place over a period of time,

$$\tau _{\mathrm{DGLAP}}2\underset{i}{}\frac{Ez_i(1z_i)}{Q_i^2}>2\frac{Ez_0(1z_0)}{Q_0^2},$$
(1)
where the sum is over gluon emission, and $`Q_i`$ and $`z_i`$ are the virtualities and fractional energies of the intermediate partons between each successive emission until $`Q_0`$ is reached. Afterwards, the non-perturbative processes of hadronization take place. One scenario of the non-perturbative process is that the produced partons (quarks and gluons) will recombine into the final hadrons. The hadron formation time can be considered as the time for partons to build up their color fields and develop the hadron wave function. According to the uncertainty principle, such a formation time in the rest frame of the hadron can be related to the hadron size $`R_h`$. In the laboratory frame, the hadron formation time is then

$$\tau _fR_h\frac{E_h}{m_h}.$$
(2)
For an $`E_h=10`$ GeV pion, this amounts to $`\tau _f3570`$ fm/$`c`$ for $`R_h=0.51`$ fm.

In some dipole models of hadronization , the quarks and anti-quarks from gluon splitting are assumed to combine into color singlet dipoles which will become the final hadrons. The hadron formation time is then assumed to be just the formation time for the gluon emission, ignoring the time of quark and anti-quark production and the time for dipoles to grow to the normal hadron size. Even if one considers this alternative hadronization process as successive emission of hadrons by the fragmenting jet, a hadron carrying a fraction $`z`$ of the parton energy will take

$$\tau _f\frac{2E_h(1z)}{k_T^2+m_h^2}$$
(3)
to be produced, where $`k_T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ is the intrinsic transverse momentum of the hadron. As we will show later, a 10 GeV hadron comes from a parton with an average energy $`E=16.5`$ GeV in $`p+p`$ collisions at RHIC, thus an average $`z=0.6`$. Using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.2`$ GeV, the formation time for a 10 GeV pion is then $`\tau _f40`$ fm/$`c`$.

Though the above numbers can only serve as order-of-magnitude estimates, they are still much longer than the typical medium size or the lifetime of the dense medium in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Furthermore, the above estimates are for hadronization in vacuum only. Medium interaction with the fragmenting partons will only increase the hadron formation time. Certainly, in the extreme case, the hadron can never be formed inside a deconfined medium due to color screening and the formation time should never be shorter than the lifetime of a quark-gluon plasma.

## III Momentum dependence of hadron suppression

The most striking feature of the observed jet quenching manifested in the suppression of high-$`p_T`$ hadrons is the almost flat $`p_T`$ dependence of the suppression at high $`p_T`$ . The empirical total energy loss has to have a linear energy dependence in order to describe such a $`p_T`$ dependence . This runs directly opposite to the trend of hadronic absorption or rescattering. Since the hadron formation time is proportional to the hadron or jet energy, the total effective energy loss due to hadron rescattering or absorption should decrease with energy, unless the energy dependence of the hadronic energy loss per unit distance is stronger than a quadratic dependence. Such a quadratic or stronger energy dependence of the energy loss can never be allowed in any physical scenario.

For elastic scatterings, the energy loss of a pion per scattering is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{el}}E_\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{cm}})/2`$, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the scattering angle in the center of mass frame. The averaged elastic energy loss can be estimated as

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{el}}}{dx}=𝑑t\frac{d\sigma }{dt}E_\pi \frac{t}{s}\rho _h\frac{\sigma _0}{B}\frac{\rho _h}{\omega _h},$$
(4)
which has a very weak energy dependence. Here $`ts(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{cm}})/2`$, $`s2E_\pi \omega _h`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the thermal average over hadron energy $`\omega _h`$ with density $`\rho _h(\omega _h)`$. We have considered only the dominant $`t`$-channel when $`\sqrt{s}`$ is much larger than the $`\pi `$-$`h`$ resonance mass and $`d\sigma /dt`$ can be described by its geometrical form $`d\sigma /dt=(\sigma _0B)\mathrm{exp}(tB)`$, with $`B/\sigma _0`$ 0.3 according to the observed geometrical scaling property of high energy hadron collisions for $`\sqrt{s}<100`$ GeV . Here, $`\sigma _0`$ is assumed to be the total cross section. Normally, elastic cross section is about 17% of the total cross section. This elastic energy loss is also related to the transverse momentum broadening,

$$\frac{q_T^2}{\lambda }\frac{\sigma _0}{B}\rho _h.$$
(5)
For a pion gas at $`T150`$ MeV, the elastic energy loss is very small, about 0.036 GeV/fm, independent of the pion’s energy. The corresponding transverse momentum broadening will be also very small. The energy loss due to inelastic $`\pi `$-$`h`$ scattering is difficult to estimate. However, it should not have a linear energy dependence, according to the estimate based on the uncertainty principle , taking into account the LPM interference effect. Therefore, the energy loss due to hadronic interaction should have an energy dependence weaker than a linear dependence. Hadronic rescattering or absorption, with the energy dependence of the formation time, cannot give rise to the observed flat $`p_T`$ dependence of the hadron suppression.

If hadronic rescattering or absorption were responsible for jet quenching, it most likely would happen in deeply inelastic $`eA`$ scattering (DIS), where a quark jet propagates through the normal nuclear matter before its hadrons are detected. As shown in Fig. 1(b), the suppression of leading hadrons clearly disappears as the initial quark energy is increased. The calculation of modified parton fragmentation functions due to parton rescattering and gluon bremsstrahlung , as shown by the solid lines, agrees with the data very well, though the data can also be explained  as a consequence of the hadron absorption after a short formation time. The hadron suppression in the central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC, on the other hand, are almost constant at high $`p_T`$ as shown in Fig. 1(a). This is hard to understand from the original theoretical calculations of parton energy loss, since the results only depend on the gluon density, whether in a cold or hot medium. The different energy dependences in DIS and heavy-ion collisions can be explained by the effect of absorption of thermal gluons from a thermal bath, which only exists in heavy-ion collisions but is absent in DIS. This detailed balance between gluon emission and absorption in a hot medium increases the energy dependence of the net energy loss . The solid lines in Fig. 1(a) are calculations based on a parameterization of the energy loss that includes the effect of detailed balance. Calculations shown in Fig. 1(b) as solid lines for DIS only include induced gluon radiation in cold nuclei.

## IV Centrality dependence of hadron suppression

This paper will not describe the details of the calculation of single hadron and dihadron spectra in heavy-ion collisions, but refer readers to Ref.. It is, however, important to point out that the effective total parton energy loss in a dynamic system is proportional to a path integral of the gluon density along the propagation trajectory. According to recent theoretical studies ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E\frac{dE}{dL}_{1d}_{\tau _0}^{\tau _0+\mathrm{\Delta }L}𝑑\tau \frac{\tau \tau _0}{\tau _0\rho _0}\rho _g(\tau ,b,\stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{n}\tau ),$$
(6)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the averaged initial gluon density at $`\tau _0`$ in a central collision, and $`dE/dL_{1d}`$ is the average parton energy loss over a distance $`R_A`$ in a 1-dimensional expanding medium with an initial uniform gluon density $`\rho _0`$. The corresponding energy loss in a static medium with a uniform gluon density $`\rho _0`$ over a distance $`R_A`$ is $`dE_0/dL=(R_A/2\tau _0)dE/dL_{1d}`$ . The gluon density $`\rho _g(\tau _0,r)`$ is assumed to be proportional to the transverse profile of participant nucleons, which is consistent up to 30% with the measured charged hadron multiplicity .

The calculated centrality dependence of the single hadron suppression in $`Au+Au`$ collisions agrees very well with the experimental measurements, as shown in Fig. 2. The centrality dependence of the back-side suppression is also in excellent agreement with the data . These are the consequences of the centrality dependence of the averaged total energy loss in Eq. (6) and the surface emission of the surviving jets. Jets produced around the core of the overlapped region are strongly suppressed, since they lose the largest amount of energy.

On the other hand, if the finite hadron formation time were shorter than the medium size in the most central collisions and jet quenching were only caused by the subsequent rescattering or absorption of the leading hadrons, one should expect a more rapid disappearance or reduction of jet quenching when the medium size becomes smaller than the hadron formation time in non-central $`Au+Au`$ collisions. This is clearly absent in the observed centrality dependence.

The large suppression of single hadron spectra, about a factor of 5, in the most central $`Au+Au`$ collisions can actually lead to a strong constraint on the hadron formation time if no parton energy loss is allowed. One can take the most extreme scenario: There is no jet attenuation before a finite hadron formation time $`\tau _f`$ and every hadron is absorbed if it is still inside the medium at the formation time. The suppression factor is then determined by the ratio of the volume of the outer layer with a width $`\tau _f`$ and the total overlapping volume. Here one neglects the finite transverse flow velocity in the early time. With a hard-sphere nuclear geometry, one finds that a factor of 5 suppression would require a formation time shorter than 2 fm/$`c`$, which is hard to reconcile with the theoretical estimate for a 10 GeV pion.

## V Jet-like hadron correlation

Perhaps the most discriminating experimental evidence against jet quenching via hadron rescattering or absorption comes from two-particle correlations. Jet structure of azimuthal correlations of leading hadrons is clearly seen in RHIC experiments and it is the same in $`p+p`$, $`d+Au`$ and peripheral $`Au+Au`$ collisions . It consists of one peak in the near-side of the triggered hadron and another in the back-side. As one increases the centrality in $`Au+Au`$ collisions, the back-side correlation is significantly suppressed just as the single hadron spectra. The near-side correlation, on the other hand, remains the same as in $`p+p`$ and $`d+Au`$ collisions. This is clear evidence that jet hadronization takes place outside the dense medium with a reduced parton energy. On the other hand, let us suppose that the leading and sub-leading hadrons from jet fragmentation are produced inside the dense medium, hadron rescattering and absorption will certainly change the near-side correlation as a function of centrality both in strength and shape, if they are responsible for the suppression of single hadron spectra and back-to-back correlations. Barring corrections due to trigger bias toward surface emission, the same-side correlation should be suppressed as much as the single hadron spectra, were the suppression caused by hadron absorption. This is clearly not seen in the data. This measurement of leading and subleading hadron correlation can also be employed in the DIS experiment to study hadron formation. When the initial quark energy is sufficiently small, hadrons will be formed inside the nucleus and the jet profile will be modified due to hadronic rescattering or absorption.

It should be stressed that the above argument is only true when the transverse momenta of the leading and subleading hadrons are close to each other. This is to ensure that both of them come from hadronization of the leading parton. If the subleading hadron is very soft, then contribution from emitted gluons induced by bremsstrahlung can become important. These soft hadrons will then have different correlation and azimuthal profile from that in $`pp`$ collisions.

Because of the trigger bias, the triggered high-$`p_T`$ hadrons mainly come from jets that are produced near the surface of the overlapped region. However, on the average the original jet should lose a finite amount of energy. In the pQCD parton model, one can calculate the average energy of the initial jet that, after rescattering and induced bremsstrahlung, eventually produces a leading hadron with transverse momentum $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$. Shown in Fig. 3 are the averaged jet energies minus $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ as functions of $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ for different values of $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$. Note that the averaged $`z=p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}/E_T^{jet}`$ in $`p+p`$ collisions is about 0.6-0.7, with the triggered hadron carrying most of the jet energy. In heavy-ion collisions, the jet loses some amount of energy before it hadronizes. Therefore, it has to have higher initial energy than in $`p+p`$ collisions in order to produce a leading hadron with the same $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$. The extra amount of energy increases with centrality as shown by the solid lines.

Note that $`E_T^{jet}`$ evaluated here is the transverse energy in the center of mass frame of the two colliding partons. Initial multiple scattering will increase the initial parton transverse momentum leading to the observed Cronin enhancement of high-$`p_T`$ single hadron spectra in $`d+Au`$ collisions . The trigger bias then leads to smaller values of $`E_T^{jet}`$ in $`Au+Au`$ collisions without energy loss than in $`p+p`$ for a fixed $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ as shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 3. The difference between solid and dashed lines should then be the averaged energy loss for a jet that survived multiple scattering and gluon bremsstrahlung and produces a leading particle with $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$. This is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$. In the most central collisions, jets that produce a leading hadron at $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}=515`$ GeV/$`c`$ lose about $`1.42.2`$ GeV energy on the average.

In experimental determination of the initial jet energy, one has to count all hadrons in the jet cone, including those coming from the emitted gluons. Some of these hadrons are very soft. One has to use a momentum cut-off as small as possible in order to make sure the measured total energy is as close to the true value of the initial jet energy as possible. Since soft hadrons from medium induced gluons could have a broader angular distribution, one should have a large jet cone with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |<\pi /2`$.

On the back-side of the triggered hadrons, one can define a hadron-triggered effective fragmentation function ,

$$D^{h_1h_2}(z_T,p_T^{\mathrm{trig}})=p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}\frac{d\sigma _{AA}^{h_1h_2}/dp_T^{\mathrm{trig}}dp_T}{d\sigma _{AA}^{h_1}/dp_T^{\mathrm{trig}}},$$
(7)
for associated hadron $`h_2`$ with $`p_T`$ in the back-side direction of $`h_1`$ with $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$, where $`z_T=p_T/p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$. The back-side direction is defined by $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \pi |<\pi /2`$. This way, one can ensure that the jet cone includes most of the soft hadrons. This is equivalent to finding remnants of lost jets in heavy-ion collisions . Shown in Fig. 5 are the hadron-triggered fragmentation functions in $`pp`$ collisions. The differences between different values of $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ are caused by scale dependence of the parton fragmentation functions and the different parton flavor composition, in particular the ratio of quark and gluon jets. The parton fragmentation functions used in the calculation are given by parameterization. With finite values of initial jet energy, mass and other higher-twist corrections become important. The actual fragmentation functions will saturate and decrease for small values of $`z_T`$. The larger the $`E_T`$, the smaller the $`z_T`$ of the saturation point.

Shown in Fig. 6 are the ratios of the hadron-triggered fragmentation functions in central $`Au+Au`$ and $`p+p`$ collisions. In $`Au+Au`$ collisions, hadrons are produced not only from jet fragmentation of the leading partons with reduced energy but also from the hadronization of the medium induced gluons. Normally, hadrons from medium induced gluons are softer and have a wider angular distribution than the hadrons from leading partons. One therefore has to define a bigger jet cone for the hadron-triggered effective fragmentation function. The softening of the effective fragmentation function is caused by the suppression of leading hadrons due to parton energy loss and the enhancement of soft hadrons from emitted gluons. Soft hadrons from emitted gluons become significant only at small $`z_T`$. At large $`z_T`$ hadrons mainly come from fragmentation of the jet with reduced energy. Thus if one chooses large $`z_T`$, the near-side jet profile should not change. On the other hand, the back-side profile could change due to transverse momentum broadening.

## VI High $`p_T`$ azimuthal anisotropy

In non-central heavy-ion collisions, the parton energy loss has finite azimuthal anisotropy due to the azimuthal dependence of the path length of propagation. This will lead to a large azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_T`$ hadron spectra  which has been observed by RHIC experiments . After correction for two-particle correlations, the observed azimuthal anisotropy is consistent with that caused by parton energy loss . The same energy loss also explains quantitatively the single hadron suppression and suppression of back-side jet correlations.

Since azimuthal anisotropy in hadron spectra is generated by the geometrical eccentricity of the dense medium, it is only sensitive to the evolution of the dense matter at very early time . As the system expands, the geometry becomes more symmetric and thus loses its ability to generate spectra anisotropy. This is particularly true in late hadronic stage . If there were no parton energy loss and no jet attenuation before a finite hadron formation time, then any anisotropy in spectra will be caused by the geometrical eccentricity at the time when hadron absorption starts. At this late time, a few fm/$`c`$ for example, the geometry is already quite symmetric and can no longer generate large anisotropy in the final hadron spectra. Therefore, the observed large azimuthal anisotropy at high $`p_T`$ cannot be generated by hadronic absorption of jets in the late stage of the evolution.

## VII SPS data

The final piece of the evidence comes from experiments at SPS. Hadron spectra at this energy are very steep at high $`p_T`$ and are very sensitive to initial transverse momentum broadening and parton energy loss . However, the measured $`\pi `$ spectra in central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions only show the expected Cronin enhancement  with no sign of significant suppression. More recent analyses of the $`Pb+Pb`$ data at the SPS energy also show  that both same-side and back-side jet-like correlations are not suppressed, though the back-side distribution is broadened. Shown in Fig. 7 as a solid line is the energy dependence of the calculated single pion suppression factor at $`p_T=4`$ GeV/$`c`$ as compared to data at RHIC and SPS. The initial gluon density $`\rho _0`$ at $`\tau _0=0.2`$ fm/$`c`$ in the calculation of the parton energy loss in Eq. (6) is assumed to be proportional to the measured $`dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/d\eta `$ . The measured multiplicity at SPS is only about 2.0 smaller than at the highest energy of RHIC. The calculated suppression increases more rapidly and reaches at 1 at the SPS energy. This is partly because of the Cronin effect which is much stronger at SPS and compensates some of the energy loss effect. However, the calculation is still about a factor of 3 smaller than the data. Similar results are reported in Ref.  when the same gluon density is used.

There could be several reasons for such a big discrepancy between data and our calculation at SPS . The initial formation time $`\tau _0`$ could be much larger than at RHIC or the lifetime of the dense matter at SPS could be much shorter. A critical behavior of the screening mass, which influence parton energy loss, could also lead to a sudden decrease of energy loss  at lower energies. Since a hadronic gas should have at least existed in $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at SPS and the particle density and duration of such a hadronic state should not be much different from that in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC, hadronic rescattering or absorption should have significantly suppressed the pion spectra, were it responsible for most of the jet quenching at RHIC. Therefore, in any circumstances, the SPS data are not consistent with a hadronic absorption picture at RHIC.

Nevertheless, jet quenching at SPS energies still remains a less explored territory. As shown in Fig. 7, it will be important to have a few measurements between SPS and RHIC energy to explore the colliding energy dependence of jet quenching and find out whether there is any threshold behavior of jet quenching. By changing the colliding energy, one essentially changes the the initial parton density without changing the initial medium size. This will allow one to observe the initial density dependence of jet quenching, obtain more information about formation time or lifetime of the medium, and search for critical behaviors that might be caused by phase transitions in the evolution of the dense medium.

## VIII Summary

This paper has provided arguments and listed experimental evidence that the observed jet quenching in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC is caused mainly by parton energy loss, not hadron absorption in a hadronic medium. The estimated hadron formation time in jet hadronization is much longer than the typical lifetime of the dense matter and thus cannot be responsible for the observed jet quenching. The observed $`p_T`$ and centrality dependence of jet quenching are not consistent with a hadronic absorption picture with a finite formation time that is smaller than the size of the medium. The measured high-$`p_T`$ azimuthal anisotropy can only be caused by the geometrical anisotropy of the medium in a very early stage and thus cannot be due to hadronic rescattering. The most direct evidence for partonic energy loss and jet hadronization outside the medium is the universal same-side leading hadron correlations inside a jet in $`p+p`$, $`d+Au`$ and $`Au+Au`$ collisions. Hadronic rescattering or absorption inside the medium would have destroyed the jet-like same-side correlation. Finally, the absence of jet quenching in $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at SPS also indirectly proves that hadronic rescattering cannot be responsible for the observed jet quenching at RHIC.

A direct measurement of parton energy loss is proposed which requires the reconstruction of the total energy of a jet that has a triggered hadron with a fixed value of $`p_T^{\mathrm{trig}}`$. The difference between $`Au+Au`$ and $`p+p`$ measurements (plus $`p_T`$ broadening due to initial multiple parton scattering) should be related to the averaged total energy loss for the jet whose leading parton produces the triggered hadron after energy loss. The measurement of softening of the effective hadron-triggered fragmentation function will further detail the pattern of energy loss and induced gluon emission. The importance of jet quenching studies at lower RHIC energies is also discussed.

## Acknowledgement

Some ideas and arguments presented here have been discussed by many people in talks and informal discussions which cannot be tracked back exactly. The author has benefitted, in particular, from discussions with D. Hardtke, P. Jacobs, H.-G. Ritter, V. Koch, Y. Kochevgov and B. Z. Kopeliovich. The author is indebted to F. Wang for discussions that lead to the idea of direct measurement of energy loss. This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Divisions of Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.