text:
# THE SCALING RELATIONS OF GALAXY CLUSTERS AND THEIR DARK MATTER HALOS

## 1 Introduction

Early-type galaxies are known to follow well defined scaling relations involving their main observational properties, i.e, the luminosity $`L`$, effective radius $`R_\mathrm{e}`$, and velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$: in particular we recall here the Faber-Jackson (hereafter FJ; Faber & Jackson 1976), the Kormendy (Kormendy 1977), and the Fundamental Plane (hereafter FP; Djorgovski & Davis 1987; Dressler et al. 1987) relations. Within the limitations of a poorer statistics, analogous relations have been found to hold also for galaxy clusters (Schaeffer et al. 1993, hereafter S93; Adami et al. 1998a, hereafter A98; for 3-parameters scaling relations involving X–ray observables, see Annis 1994; Fujita & Takahara 1999a; Fritsch & Burchert 1999; Miller, Melott & Gorman 1999). Besides their potential importance as distance indicators, these scaling relations are also useful to get insights on the structure and, possibly, on the formation and evolutionary processes of galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Well defined scaling relations, that recall the observed ones, are indeed expected on the basis of the simplest model for the formation of structures in an expanding Universe, namely the gravitational collapse of density fluctuations in an otherwise homogeneous distribution of collisionless dark matter (DM). In fact, the spherical top-hat model (Gunn & Gott 1972) predicts that, at any given epoch, all the existing DM halos have just collapsed and virialized, i.e., $`M=r_{\mathrm{vir}}\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^2/G`$ (where $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}U/GM^2`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^22T/M`$, $`U`$ and $`T`$ being the potential and kinetic energies of a halo of mass $`M`$, respectively). In addition, all the halos are characterized by a constant mean density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, given by the critical density of the Universe at that redshift times a factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ depending on $`z`$ and on the given cosmology (see, e.g., Peebles 1980; Eke, Cole & Frenk 1996). For simplicity, we call $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the radius of the sphere containing such a mean density, so that $`Mr_\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$. In general, $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but, if for a family of density distributions $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_\mathrm{\Delta }const`$, then the virial theorem can be rewritten as $`Mr_\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^2`$, and, together with $`Mr_\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, it brings to $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$, thus providing three relations that closely resemble the observed ones. Note that these expectations involve the global three-dimensional properties of DM halos, while the quantities entering the observed scaling relations are projected on the plane of the sky. However, if DM halos are structurally homologous111Strictly speaking, DM halos are only weakly homologous systems, since the low mass halos are systematically more concentrated than the more massive ones (for a definition of weak homology, see Bertin, Ciotti & del Principe 2002). systems, as found in cosmological simulations (Navarro, Frenk & White 1997, hereafter NFW), and are characterized by similar velocity dispersion profiles (e.g., Cole & Lacey 1996), their projected properties are also expected to follow well defined scaling relations (with some scatter due to departures from perfect homology and sphericity).

Of course, the simple considerations above are not sufficient to account for the observed scaling relations of galaxy clusters, at least for two reasons. The first is that a given potential well (as the one associated with the cluster DM distribution) can be filled, in principle, by very different distributions of “tracers” (such as the galaxies in the clusters, from which the scaling relations are derived). This means that the very existence of the cluster FP implies a remarkable regularity in their formation processes: galaxies must have formed or “fallen” in all clusters in a similar way. The second reason is that any trend of the cluster mass-to-light ratio (necessary to transform masses, involved in the theoretical relations, into luminosities222We recall here that the luminosity of a cluster refers to the sum of the luminosities of all its constituent galaxies, i.e., a sum over the cluster luminosity function., entering the observed ones) must be taken into account for a proper interpretation of the observed scaling relations.

A distinct but strongly related question about the origin and the meaning of the scaling laws naturally arises when applying the predictions of the cosmology also at galactic scales: in fact, while scale-invariant relations are predicted, different slopes of the FJ relation are observed for galaxies and for galaxy clusters (see Section 2, and Girardi et al. 2000). This suggests that different processes have been at work in setting or modifying the correlations at the two mass scales. The theoretical implications of the scaling laws for elliptical galaxies (Es) have been intensively explored (see, e.g., Bertin et al. 2002 and references therein), and several works have been devoted to their study within the framework of the dissipationless merging scenario in Newtonian dynamics (e.g., Capelato, de Carvalho & Carlberg 1995; Nipoti, Londrillo & Ciotti 2003a, 2003b, hereafter NLC03ab; Evstigneeva, Reshetnikov & Sotnikova 2002; Dantas et al. 2003; González-García & van Albada 2003). In particular, if the initial total energy of the system is non-negative, the merger products are found to follow the observed edge-on FP (with the important exception of merging dominated by accretion of small galaxies), but they badly fail at reproducing the FJ and the Kormendy relations, in accordance with elementary predictions based on energy conservation and on the virial theorem (NLC03ab). It has also been shown (Ciotti & van Albada 2001) that gas free mergers cannot account at the same time for the FP and for the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relation (that link the black hole mass and the stellar velocity dispersion of the host spheroid, Ferrarese & Merrit 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000); the importance of gas dissipation in the formation of elliptical galaxies is also apparent from the observed color–magnitude and $`\mathrm{Mg}_2`$-$`\sigma `$ relations (e.g., Saglia et al. 2000; Bernardi et al. 2003a). Much less effort has been devoted to the theoretical study of the FP of galaxy clusters: beside a work on the effects of dissipationless merging (Pentericci, Ciotti & Renzini 1996), the other few theoretical studies mainly focus on the possible relation between the FP properties and the cluster age, the number of substructures, and the underlying cosmology (Fujita & Takahara 1999b; Beisbart, Valdarnini & Buchert 2001). From the comparison between the FP of galaxies and of galaxy clusters in the $`k`$-space, Burstein et al. (1997) derived support to the idea that, at variance with groups and clusters, gas dissipation must have had an important role on the formation and evolution of galaxies.

In order to get a more complete view of the problems depicted above, we use high-resolution N-body simulations to study the scaling relations of very massive DM halos, that are thought to host the present day galaxy clusters. The aim is to verify whether these relations are similar or not to the observed ones, and determine the assumptions required to make them in mutual agreement. The results thus obtained and the empirical evidence of different slopes of the scaling relations at galactic and cluster scales are then discussed. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we present the scaling relations observed for nearby galaxy clusters and those followed by early-type galaxies. In Section 3 we describe the high-resolution resimulation technique employed to build the sample of massive DM halos used for our analysis, and we derive their scaling relations. In Sections 4 and 5 we discuss under which hypothesis these scaling relations can be translated into the observed ones, focusing in particular on the astrophysical implications of the differences at galactic and cluster scales. The main results are summarized and discussed in Section 6.

## 2 Scaling relations of clusters and early-type galaxies

From the observational point of view only two works (namely, S93 and A98) report on the FP of galaxy clusters, i.e., a relation among their optical luminosity, scale radius, and velocity dispersion. The two groups agree about the existence of a tight and well defined FP, even if quantitative differences in the numerical values of its coefficients are found, that can be traced back to the different choice of the radial variable. In fact, A98 use 4 density profiles (King, Hubble, NFW, and de Vaucouleurs) to describe the distribution of cluster galaxies, concluding that the best fit is provided by the first two models: consistently, they adopt the clusters core radii to obtain the FP. S93 instead use in their analysis the cluster half-light projected radii (the standard choice in the vast majority of the FP studies). For this reason we choose to compare our results to those presented by S93: we note however that the FP coefficients derived by A98 when using the projected half-light radii derived from the de Vaucouleurs model agree within the errors with those reported by S93.

For their sample of 16 galaxy clusters at $`z0.2`$, S93 used the photometric parameters $`L`$ and $`R_\mathrm{e}`$ in the V band (quoted by West, Oemler & Dekel, 1989), and the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ (given by Struble & Rood, 1991), and they derived not only the FP, but also a FJ-like and a Kormendy-like relations. However, instead of reporting the S93 scaling laws, that have been obtained by means of least-square fits to the data, here we re-derive them by minimizing the distance of the residuals perpendicular to a straight line (for the FJ and the Kormendy relations) or to a plane (for the FP). Results are anyway consistent with those of S93. The FJ and Kormendy relations we obtain are:

$$L\sigma ^{2.18\pm 0.52},$$
(1)
in good agreement also with the results of Girardi et al. (2000), and

$$LR_\mathrm{e}^{1.55\pm 0.19},$$
(2)
where $`L`$ is given in $`10^{12}L_{}/h^2`$, $`\sigma `$ in 1000 km/s, $`R_\mathrm{e}`$ in Mpc$`/h`$ ($`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, and $`h=1`$), and the errors on the exponents take into account also the observational uncertainties. As can be seen from Fig.1, where equations (1) and (2) are plotted together with the S93 data, the two relations above describe real scalings among the cluster properties, even if their scatter is quite large: without taking into account the observational errors, the $`rms`$ dispersion of the data around the best-fit lines is 0.19 in both cases. Similarly to what happens for galaxies, a considerable improvement is achieved when combining all the three observables together in a FP relation, that we have derived by performing a Principal Component Analysis (PCA; see e.g. Murtagh & Heck 1987) on the data sample, thus obtaining the new orthogonal variables $`p_i`$ defined by:

$$p_i\alpha _i\mathrm{log}R_\mathrm{e}+\beta _i\mathrm{log}L+\gamma _i\mathrm{log}\sigma ,i=1,2,3.$$
(3)
The numerical values of the coefficients $`\alpha _i`$, $`\beta _i`$, and $`\gamma _i`$ are listed in Table 1, while the resulting distribution of the observed clusters in the ($`p_1,p_3`$) and ($`p_1,p_2`$) spaces are shown in Fig.2, the former providing an exact edge-on view of the FP and making apparent its small thickness. A more intuitive representation of a (nearly) edge-on view of the FP can be obtained by solving equation (3) for $`i=3`$ and using $`p_3const`$:

$$LR_\mathrm{e}^{0.9\pm 0.15}\sigma ^{1.31\pm 0.22}.$$
(4)
This relation is shown in Fig.3, and is characterized by an $`rms`$ dispersion of $`0.07`$.

How do cluster scaling relations compare with the analogous relations followed by early-type galaxies? For what concerns the FP, the agreement with that of galaxies is remarkable. For example, the FP of elliptical galaxies in the B band is given by $`LR_\mathrm{e}^{0.8}\sigma ^{1.3}`$ (e.g., Dressler et al. 1987; Jørgensen, Franx & Kjærgaard 1996; Scodeggio et al. 1998; Bernardi et al. 2003c). As well known, the exponents of the galaxy FP depend on the adopted photometric band (see, e.g., Scodeggio et al. 1998; Treu 2001), but the differences from the values reported above become significant only when using the K-band (Pahre, Djorgovski & de Carvalho 1998). Thus, the agreement between the cluster and the galaxy FP can be regarded as robust. The situation is similar for the Kormendy relation: in fact, $`LR_\mathrm{e}^{1.7\pm 0.07}`$ has been reported for ellipticals in the B band (Davies et al. 1983; see also Schade, Barrientos & Lopez-Cruz 1997; Bernardi et al. 2003b). However, this agreement should be regarded as less robust than that of the FP, because largely different values of the Kormendy slope for various selections of the data sample have been reported in the case of galaxies (Ziegler et al. 1999). In any case, the FJ relation of galaxies is different from that the clusters FJ: in fact, $`L\sigma ^4`$ for (luminous) Es (Faber & Jackson 1976; Forbes & Ponman 1999; Bernardi et al. 2003b), while for clusters the reported slope is around 2 (a value of $`1.58`$ is also found by A98). The additional facts that the slope of the galaxy FJ seems to drop below 3 for ellipticals with $`\sigma <170`$ km/s (see, e.g., Davies et al. 1983), and that the exponent of the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relation (Ferrarese & Merrit 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000) is remarkably similar to that of the FJ will be discussed in Section 5.

## 3 DM halos scaling relations

### 3.1 The simulations

To investigate whether the dark matter hosts of galaxy clusters, as obtained by numerical simulations, do define scaling relations similar to the observed ones, a large enough sample of very massive DM halos is needed. Therefore, we employed dissipationless simulation with $`512^3`$ particles of $`6.86\times 10^{10}\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$ mass each, where the volume of the Universe is sufficiently large for this purpose: the box side is $`479h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ comoving, with $`h=0.7`$ (see Yoshida, Sheth & Diaferio 2001). The adopted cosmological model is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM Universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ (e.g., Ostriker & Steinhardt 1995), spectral shape $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.21`$, and normalization to the local cluster abundance, $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. From this simulation, we have randomly selected a sub-sample of 13 halos at $`z=0`$, with masses between $`10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$ and $`2.3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$. They span a variety of shapes, from nearly round to more elongated. The richness of their environment also changes from case to case, with the less isolated halos usually surrounded by pronounced filamentary structures, containing massive neighbors (up to $`20\%`$ of the selected halo in mass).

Given the mass resolution of the simulation, less than 1500 particles compose a halo of $`10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$ and, due to discreteness effects, its properties defining the FP relation cannot be accurately determined. We have therefore resimulated at higher resolution the halos in our sample by means of the technique introduced in Tormen, Bouchet & White (1997): here we recall only its relevant aspects (for more details see Lanzoni, Cappi & Ciotti 2003). The first step is to select in a given cosmological simulation the halo one wants to “zoom in”. Then, the region defined by all the particles composing the selected halo and its immediate surroundings is detected in the initial conditions of the parent simulation, and the number of particles within it is increased by the factor needed to attain the suited mass resolution. Such a region is therefore called “the high resolution region” (HRR). Since the mean inter-particle separation within the HRR is smaller than in the parent simulation, the corresponding high-frequency modes of the primordial fluctuation spectrum are added to those on larger scales originally used in the parent simulation, and the overall displacement field is also modified consequently. At the same time, the distribution of surrounding particles is smoothed by means of a spherical grid, whose spacing increases with the distance from the center: in such a way, the original surrounding particles are replaced by a smaller number of *macroparticles*, whose mass grows with the distance from the HRR. Thanks to this method, even if the number of particles in the HRR is increased, the total number of particles to be evolved in the simulation remains small enough to require reasonable computational costs, while the tidal field that the overall particle distribution exerts on the HRR remains very close to the original one. For the new initial configuration thus produced, vacuum boundary conditions are adopted, i.e., we assume a vanishing density fluctuation field outside the spherical distribution of particles with diameter equal to the original box size $`L`$. A new N-body simulation is then run starting from these new initial conditions, and allows to re-obtain the selected halo at the required resolution.

We have applied this technique to the selected 13 massive DM halos. For 8 of them the resolution has been increased by a factor $`33`$, by means of high-resolution particles of mass $`2.07\times 10^9\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$ each, while a further increase of a factor of 2 has been adopted for the 5 intermediate mass halos (the particle mass is $`10^9\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$ in this case). The gravitational softening used for the high-resolution region is $`ϵ=5\mathrm{kpc}/h`$ (roughly Plummer equivalent), corresponding to about $`0.2\%`$ and $`0.5\%`$ of the virial radius of the most and least massive halos, respectively. This scale length represents the spatial resolution of the resimulations, to be compared with that of $`30\mathrm{kpc}/h`$ of the original one. To run the resimulations, the parallel dissipationless tree-code GADGET (Springel, Yoshida & White 2001) has been used. At $`z=0`$ the DM halos have been selected by means of a spherical overdensity criterium (Lacey & Cole 1994; Tormen et al. 1997), i.e., they are defined as spheres centered on maximum density peaks in the particle distribution, and with mean density equal to the virial density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ predicted by the spherical top-hat model for the adopted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology ($`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }97\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ at $`z=0`$). The corresponding mass, linear scales and velocity dispersions are listed in Table 2.

### 3.2 Scaling relations for the DM halos

According to the selection method described in the previous section, the DM halos are all characterized by the same $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and should also be nearly virialized systems. The first condition (and thus the relation $`Mr_\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$) is satisfied by construction while the second can be easily verified. In fact, we find that all the selected halos follow the relations $`Mr_\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^2`$ with a $`rms`$ scatter of 0.03 only, and $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^{3.1}`$, with $`rms0.05`$. In Table 2 we list the ratio $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for each halo.

However, projected quantities are involved in the observations and the first step of our analysis is the determination of which (if any) scaling relations are satisfied by the DM halos when projected. We have therefore constructed the projected radial profiles of the selected halos by counting the DM particles within concentric shells around the center of mass for three arbitrary orthogonal directions ($`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$), and we defined $`R_\mathrm{h}`$ as the projected radius of the circle containing half of the total number of particles. Then, the velocity dispersion $`\sigma _\mathrm{h}`$ has been computed from the line-of-sight (barycentric) velocity of all the particles within $`R_\mathrm{h}`$. Since the DM halos, as well as real clusters, are not spherical, such a procedure gives different values of $`R_\mathrm{h}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{h}`$ for the three line-of-sights (the maximum variations however never exceed 33% and 21% for the two quantities, respectively; see Table 2) and we decided to build our data sample by considering all the three projections for each halo. With the projected properties $`R_\mathrm{h}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{h}`$ now available, we have determined the best fit relations between $`M`$ and $`R_\mathrm{h}`$, and between $`M`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{h}`$ by minimizing the distance of the residuals perpendicular to a straight line, and thus obtaining the DM analogues of the observed FJ and Kormendy relations:

$$M\sigma _\mathrm{h}^{3.02\pm 0.15},$$
(5)
and

$$MR_\mathrm{h}^{2.36\pm 0.14},$$
(6)
with $`rms0.12`$ and 0.15, respectively. With a PCA of these data we determined the relation analogous to equation (4):

$$MR_\mathrm{h}^{1.1\pm 0.05}\sigma _\mathrm{h}^{1.73\pm 0.04},$$
(7)
with $`rms=0.04`$. Compared to those among the virial properties, these relations have larger scatters, as expected. The FJ and FP have slopes similar to those obtained for the virial quantities, while the $`M`$-$`R_\mathrm{h}`$ relation appears to be significantly flatter, as a consequence of the different density concentration of low and high mass halos. Note that the NFW concentration parameter varies only weakly in the mass range covered by the halos in our sample (e.g., Eke, Navarro & Steinmetz 2001; Bullock et al. 2001). This is consistent with our results: in fact, from equation (6) and $`Mr_\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, we find that $`R_\mathrm{h}/r_\mathrm{\Delta }M^{0.09}`$.

We stress that while scaling relations between $`M`$, $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (or $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$) and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}`$ were expected, a tight correlation between projected properties is a less trivial result: in fact, structural and dynamical non-homology can, in principle, produce significantly different effective radii and projected velocity dispersion profiles for systems characterized by identical $`M`$, $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}`$. It is also known that weak homology, coupled with the virial theorem, does indeed produce well defined scaling laws (see, e.g., Bertin et al. 2002). Therefore, the scaling relations presented in equations (5)–(7) are a first interesting result of our study. The difference between the values of the exponents appearing in equations (5)–(7) and those in the virial relations is the direct evidence of weak homology of the halos: in fact, strong homology would result in exactly the same exponents, while a strong non-homology would disrupt any correlation. We checked this further, and we found that the DM halos in our sample still show well defined scaling relations (although with different exponents) when considering the projected radius encircling any fixed fraction of the total mass, and the corresponding projected velocity dispersion within it (see Table 3). Note that this finding is in agreement with the results already pointed out by several groups, namely the fact that DM halos obtained with numerical N-body simulations in standard cosmologies are characterized by significant structural and dynamical weak homology (e.g., Cole & Lacey 1996; NFW; Subramanian, Cen & Ostriker 2000, and references therein).

## 4 From the simulated to the observed scaling relations

Comparison of equations (5), (6), (7) and (1), (2), (4), reveals that the FJ, Kormendy and FP relations of simulated DM halos are characterized by different slopes with respect to those derived observationally. What kind of regular and systematic trend with cluster mass of the galaxy properties and distribution are implied by these differences? In order to answer this question, we define the dimensionless quantities $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}M/L`$, $`R_\mathrm{h}/R_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`𝒮\sigma _\mathrm{h}/\sigma `$. Focusing first on the edge-on FP, from equations (4) and (7) we obtain:

$$\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{^{1.1}𝒮^{1.73}}R_\mathrm{e}^{0.2}\sigma ^{0.42}.$$
(8)
Thus, in order to transform the DM halos FP into the observed FP, the product $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{1.1}𝒮^{1.73}`$ must systematically increase as $`R_\mathrm{e}^{0.2}\sigma ^{0.42}`$, which in turn, again from equation (4), is approximately proportional to $`L^{0.3}`$. In principle, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, $``$, and $`𝒮`$ could all vary in a combined and regular way from cluster to cluster, so that equation (8) is satisfied. Of course, given the small scatter around the best fit relation (4), this kind of solution requires a remarkable fine tuning of the variations of the three parameters. Alternatively, it is possible that only one of the three parameters varies significantly, while the other two are approximately constant. This situation is analogous to that faced in the studies of the physical origin of the FP tilt of elliptical galaxies, where the so called “orthogonal exploration of the parameter space” is often adopted (see, e.g., Renzini & Ciotti 1993; Ciotti 1997) . In this approach all but one of the available model parameters are fixed to constant values, and the goal is to determine what kind of variation of the “free” parameter is necessary to reproduce the observed FP tilt. Several quantitative results have been derived in this framework (see, e.g., Ciotti, Lanzoni & Renzini 1996; Ciotti & Lanzoni 1997, and references therein), even though, by construction, it cannot provide the most general solution to the problem, and the choice of the specific parameter responsible for the tilt is somewhat arbitrary (see Bertin et al. 2002; Lanzoni & Ciotti 2003). In the present context some of this arbitrariness can be removed: in fact, here we assume that 1) the DM distribution in real clusters is described by the simulated DM halos, and that galaxies are merely dynamical tracers of the total potential well, 2) in addition to the edge-on FP, we also consider the constraints imposed by the FJ and the Kormendy relations. These two points will allow to use the orthogonal exploration approach for determining what is the most plausible origin of the tilt between the simulated and the observed cluster FP.

In order to make the DM halos FP reproduce the observed one within the framework of the orthogonal exploration approach, we have three different possibilities, each corresponding to the choice of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, $``$, or $`𝒮`$ as the key parameter, while keeping constant the remaining two in the l.h.s. of equation (8). Note that the two choices based on variations of $``$ or $`𝒮`$ should be interpreted from an astrophysical point of view as systematic differences in the way galaxies populate the cluster DM potential well as a function of the cluster mass. However, the orthogonal analysis of the FJ and the Kormendy relations strongly argue against these two solutions, since from equations (1), (2), (5), and (6) one obtains

$$\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{𝒮^{3.02}}\sigma ^{0.84},$$
(9)
and

$$\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{^{2.36}}R_\mathrm{e}^{0.81}.$$
(10)
Thus, it is apparent that any attempt to reproduce equation (8) by a variation of $``$ (or $`𝒮`$) alone will fail at reproducing the FJ (or the Kormendy) relation: in fact, the only parameter appearing in all the equations (8), (9), and (10) is the mass-to-light ratio333Note that the constraints imposed by the FJ and the Kormendy relations should not be considered redundant with respect to those imposed by the edge-on FP: in fact, these two relations, albeit with a large scatter, describe how galaxies are distributed on the face-on FP. $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

Therefore, while a purely structural ($``$) and a purely dynamical ($`𝒮`$) origin of the tilt between the DM halos FP and the clusters FP seem to be both ruled out by the reasons above, a systematically varying mass-to-light ratio, for $``$ and $`𝒮`$ constant, could in principle account for all the three considered scaling relations. In particular, from equation (8), $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}L^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 0.3`$. Guided by this indication, we tried to superimpose the points corresponding to the simulated DM halos to the sample of observed clusters by using $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}M^\beta `$, and we found that if

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=280h\left(\frac{M}{10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}/h}\right)^{0.23}\frac{\mathrm{M}_{}}{\mathrm{L}_{}},$$
(11)
the edge-on FP of DM halos is practically indistinguishable from that of real clusters (see Fig.2a and Fig.3): the value of $`\alpha `$ derived from this assumption is $`\alpha =\beta /(1\beta )0.3`$. Note that such a trend of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is in agreement not only with the expectations of equation (8), but also with what inferred observationally in the B-band (S93; Girardi et al. 2002; Bahcall & Comeford 2002; but see Bahcall, Lubin & Dorman 1995; Bahcall et al. 2000; and Kochanek et al. 2003 for claims of a constant mass-to-light ratio at large scales), and with what inferred from the comparison between the observed B-band luminosity function of virialized systems and the halo mass function predicted in CDM cosmogonies (Marinoni & Hudson 2002). A remarkable agreement is also found with the results of van den Bosch, Yang & Mo (2003), who, using a completely different approach, obtain $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}M^{0.26}`$ for their model A, which allows for a non-constant $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ at the cluster scales (see their equation 15 and Table 2). In addition, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}280h\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for $`M10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$ clusters, and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}475h\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for $`M10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{}/h`$ clusters are values well within the range of the various estimates for galaxy clusters (e.g., Adami et al. 1998b; Mellier 1999; Wilson, Kaiser & Luppino 2001; Girardi et al. 2000; Girardi et al. 2002). It is also remarkable (as not a necessary consequence) that by adopting equation (11) also the face-on FP, and the FJ and Kormendy relations are very well reproduced, as apparent from Fig.2b and Figs.1ab, respectively.

What could be the physical interpretation of the required trend of the mass-to-light ratio with cluster mass? We note that equation (11) can be formally rewritten as $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{gal}}\times (M/M_{\mathrm{gal}})M^\beta `$, where M is the DM mass of the clusters ($``$ their total mass), $`M_{\mathrm{gal}}`$ is their total stellar content in galaxies,

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{gal}}\frac{N_{\mathrm{gal}}(L)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}(L)L𝑑L}{N_{\mathrm{gal}}(L)L𝑑L},$$
(12)
where $`N_{\mathrm{gal}}(L)`$ is the cluster luminosity function, and finally $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}(L)`$ is the mean stellar mass-to-light ratio of a galaxy of total luminosity $`L`$. Thus, the trend of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ with $`M`$ could be ascribed or to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{gal}}M^\beta `$ for $`M/M_{\mathrm{gal}}=const`$, or to $`M_{\mathrm{gal}}M^{1\beta }`$ for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{gal}}=const`$ (or, more generally, to a combined effect of these two quantities). Both possible solutions have interesting astrophysical implications. For example, a constant $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{gal}}`$ from cluster to cluster is obtained only if all clusters have the same population of galaxies, i.e., if they are characterized by a universal luminosity function (LF) and by a similar morphological mix, so that the distribution of the stellar mass-to-light ratios of their galaxies is also the same. In such a case, the required trend $`M_{\mathrm{gal}}M^{0.77}`$ should be entirely explained by a systematic increase with $`M`$ of the total number of galaxies, in remarkable agreement with several studies of the halo occupation numbers, that find $`N_{\mathrm{gal}}M^a`$, with $`a`$ in the range 0.7–0.9 (Peacock & Smith 2000; Scranton 2002; Berlind & Weinberg 2002; Marinon & Hudson 2002; van den Bosch et al. 2003). To study the ratio $`M/M_{\mathrm{gal}}`$, an estimate of the stellar mass in galaxies can also be obtained from the observed total luminosity in the near infrared (since Es are the dominant component of the cluster population and their luminosity in the K band gives a reasonable measure of their stellar mass, i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{gal}}L_K`$). However, observational results are still uncertain and controversial: a constant or weakly decreasing $`M/L_K`$ with $`M`$ is reported by Kochaneck et al. (2003) for the 2MASS clusters, while an increasing $`M/L_K`$ is claimed by Lin, Mohr & Standford (2003) for the data from the same survey.

In any case, the universality of the cluster luminosity function is still under debate since it appears to be appropriate in many cases, but variations in some individual clusters have also been reported (see, e.g., Yagi et al. 2002, De Propris et al. 2003, and Christlein & Zabludoff 2003 for detailed discussions and recent results). In particular, the LF of early-type (or quiescent) galaxies appears to vary significantly among clusters (but see Andreon 1998): if the richer clusters contain a proportionally larger fraction of elliptical galaxies (Balogh et al. 2002), that are characterized by a higher $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}`$ compared to that of spirals, a cluster-dependent $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{gal}}`$ should be expected even in presence of a universal LF.

## 5 Cluster vs. galaxy scaling relations

As discussed in Section 2, the cosmological collapse model predicts the same scaling relations at all mass scales and, remarkably, the edge-on FP and the (although more dispersed) Kormendy relation of clusters and ellipticals are very similar. In particular, the interpretation of the FP tilt of elliptical galaxies as the combined results of the virial theorem and strong structural and dynamical homology, implies $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}L^{0.3}`$ in the B band (e.g., Faber et al. 1987; van Albada, Bertin & Stiavelli 1995; Bertin et al. 2002), in agreement with the result for clusters (equation 11). In Section 4 we showed that equation (5) coupled with $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}L^{0.3}`$ does reproduce the observed FJ relation at cluster scales, but clearly this cannot work in the case of galaxies: in fact, the FJ relation of Es is characterized by a significantly higher exponent ($`4`$) than that of clusters ($`2`$). Indeed, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}`$ should actually decrease for increasing galaxy luminosity in order to reproduce the observed FJ, at variance with all the available indications (e.g., Faber et al. 1987; Jørgensen et al. 1996; Scodeggio et al. 1998).

One is then forced to assume that 1) the relation $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$ does not apply in the case of Es, perhaps due a failure of standard cosmology at small scales, or 2) evolutionary processes have modified the ratio $`\sigma _{}/\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}`$, where $`\sigma _{}`$ is the galaxy central velocity dispersion (from which the FJ relation is derived). For what concerns point 1), this might be another problem encountered by the current cosmological paradigm at small scales, in addition to the well known over-prediction of the number of DM satellites (the so called “DM crisis”; see Moore et al. 1999; but see also Stöhr et al. 2002 and the recent results on the “running spectral index” obtained by Peiris et al. 2003 from the WMAP data) and the cusp-core problem for low surface brightness and dwarf galaxies (e.g., Swaters et al. 2003ab, and references therein). However, this point is at present very speculative, and thus in the following we restrict to the standard CDM paradigm, that predicts $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$ also at galactic mass scales. Two physical processes (namely, gas dissipation and early-time merging) certainly played a major role in galaxy evolution, thus supporting point 2). The effects of these two processes have been already discussed in the context of $`k`$-space by Burstein et al. (1997): here we will focus on the implications that can be derived from the simpler FJ relation, taking into account the additional information from recent numerical simulations (NLC03ab) and the constraints imposed on galaxy merging by the recently discovered $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relation (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000), according to which $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sigma _{}^4`$, with very small dispersion.

We then adopt the point of view that at the epoch of the detachment from the Hubble flow, also the seed galaxies were characterized by the “universal” scaling law $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$, and we discuss the possibility that galaxy merging and gas dissipation originated the observed FJ of Es. We start by considering the effect of dissipationless merging alone. From this point of view, it is clear that merging played different roles in the evolutionary history of clusters and galaxies. In fact, while clusters can be thought as formed from the collapse of density perturbations at scales that just became non-linear, galaxies are presently in a highly non-linear regime and the merging they suffered since their separation from the Hubble expansion can no longer be interpreted in terms of the cosmological collapse of density fluctuations. The differences between these two dynamical processes have important consequences for the present discussion. In fact, in the cosmological collapse case the initial conditions correspond to those of a “cold” system (i.e., $`2T_i+U_i=V<0`$), and so virialization increases the virial velocity dispersion of the end-products as $`T_f=T_iV`$: the systematic increase of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}`$ with $`M`$ in clusters is basically due to this process. At highly non-linear scales (such as, for instance, in the case of galaxies in the outskirts of clusters or groups) the situation is considerably different. In fact, if merging occurs, it cannot be interpreted as the collapse of a cold system, but, on the contrary, the initial conditions of the merging pair are in general characterized by a null or a positive $`V`$ (see, e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1987, Chap.7): under these conditions, the virial velocity dispersion of the remnant will not increase. In fact, numerical simulations of one and two-component galaxy models show that successive dissipationless merging at galactic scales, while preserving the edge-on FP, does not reproduce the FJ relation, being the end-products characterized by a too low (i.e., nearly constant) $`\sigma _{}`$ compared to the expectations of the FJ (NLC03ab). In other words, dissipationless merging at galactic scales in general will produce a relation $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha >3`$. Obviously, this could be an interesting property in our context, since we are exactly looking for a mechanism able to increase $`\alpha `$ from 3 to 4. We also note that faint elliptical galaxies do follow a FJ relation with a best-fit slope significantly lower than 4 (Davies et al. 1983 report a value of $`2.4`$) and more similar to the cosmological predictions: a simple interpretation of this fact could be that small galaxies experimented less merging events than giant Es, so that their scaling relations are more reminiscent of the cosmological origin. However, even if able to increase the exponent of the $`M`$-$`\sigma `$ relation, several theoretical and empirical arguments clearly indicate that purely dissipationless merging cannot be at the origin of the spheroids. For example, why the exponent should increase to the observed value is unclear, even though it has been claimed that the FJ of Es is the result of cumulative effects of inelastic merging and passing encounters taking place in cluster environment (Funato, Makino & Ebisuzaki 1993; Funato & Makino 1999). These authors already discuss some weakness of the scenario they suggest (for instance, the difficulty to account for the analogous Tully-Fisher relation of spirals), and we add that it is not clear whether also the other scaling laws are reproduced by their simulations, nor how the FJ relation could be followed also by the field Es if resulting from dynamical interactions in cluster environment. Moreover, a further difficulty is added by the recently discovered $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relation: if the FJ is the cumulative result of random dynamical processes that changed the galaxy velocity dispersion, how can the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relation be so tight? Finally, an even stronger empirical argument argues against substantial dissipationless merging for Es: in fact, if the merging end-products are forced to obey both the edge-on FP and the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relation, then they are characterized by exceedingly large effective radii with respect to real galaxies (Ciotti & van Albada 2001).

Concerning the effect of gas dissipation on the predicted relations at galactic and cluster scales, we note that an important difference already resides in what is effectively observed in the two cases when deriving the scaling laws: the galaxy distribution, tracing the gravitational potential of the dark matter, in the case of clusters; the stellar population within a fraction of the effective radius, where stars themselves are the major contributors to the total gravitational field, in the case of Es. Since the top-hat model properly describes the (dissipationless) collapse of the DM component, it is not surprising that it cannot be accurately applied for predicting the properties of the baryonic (dissipative) matter where it is dominant. In addition, gas dissipation is thought to be negligible for the formation and evolution of clusters, while it empirically appears to be increasingly important with mass for the galaxies, as mirrored by their $`Mg_2`$-$`\sigma `$ and color-magnitude relations, and by the observed metallicity gradients (e.g., Saglia et al. 2000; Bernardi et al. 1998; Bernardi et al. 2003a). As discussed by Ciotti & van Albada (2001), its effects also represent a possible solution to the exceedingly large effective radii found for (dissipationless) merger products forced to follow both the FP and the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relation. Thus, from the considerations above, gas dissipation is a good candidate to explain the difference between cluster and galaxy FJs. However, we note that baryonic dissipation alone cannot solve the discrepancy: in fact, its effect is to increase $`\sigma _{}`$, thus further decreasing the exponent in the galactic FJ relation. This can be seen in a more quantitative way as follows. Given that galactic DM halos follows $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$, then the FJ relation implies that $`(M/M_{})\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}(\sigma _{}/\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}})^3\sigma _{}^1`$: this means that at fixed $`M/M_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}`$, dissipation should have been more important in low mass galaxies, contrarily to the existing observational evidences.

In summary, the arguments presented above strongly suggest that merging and gas dissipation played a fundamental role in the formation and evolution of galaxies. In particular, given the competitive effect of these two processes on the slope of the $`M`$-$`\sigma `$ relation, they appear to be both necessary for modifying the $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$ into the observed FJ. Coupled with the necessity of dissipative merging, the observational evidence that the bulk of stars in Es, even at high $`z`$, are old puts a strong constraint on the time when the mass of spheroids was assembled: say, $`z\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. As already recognized by several authors, this is in agreement with the available information about the star formation history of the Universe and the redshift evolution of the quasar luminosity function (see, e.g., Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2000; Ciotti & van Albada 2001; Burkert & Silk 2001; Yu & Tremaine 2002; Cavaliere & Vittorini 2002; Haiman, Ciotti & Ostriker 2003). A tight connection between the star formation and the quasar activity in Es is further supported by the striking similarity of slopes between the FJ and the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relations, thus suggesting a common origin for these two empirical laws.

Based on these considerations, it seems likely that the scaling relations of Es are the result of the cosmological collapse of the density fluctuations at the epoch when galactic scales became non-linear, plus important modifications afterward due to early-time merging in gas-rich systems. On the contrary, since the present day non-linearity scale is that of galaxy clusters, and since the role of gas dissipation is thought to be marginal in clusters life, the cosmological collapse model and a mass-to-light ratio increasing with cluster mass seem to be sufficient to account for their scaling relations.

## 6 Discussions and conclusions

In this paper we have addressed the question of whether high mass DM halos (that are thought to host the clusters of galaxies) do define the FP and the other scaling relations observed for nearby clusters. For that purpose, we have analyzed a sample of 13 massive DM halos, obtained with high-resolution N-body simulations in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology. After verifying that the DM halos do follow the predictions of the spherical collapse model for virialized systems, we have found that also their projected properties define a FJ, a Kormendy and a FP–like relations. This latter result is not trivial and it can be traced back to the weak (structural and dynamical) homology shown by the DM halos assembled via hierarchical cosmological merging. However, the slopes of the DM halos scaling laws do not coincide with the observed ones, and we have discussed what kind of systematic variations of one or more of the structural and dynamical properties of the galaxy distribution with cluster mass could account for such differences. We have shown that two of the three basic options can be discarded just by requiring the simultaneous reproduction of the (edge-on) FP, FJ and Kormendy relations. A solution that instead works remarkably well is to assume a cluster mass-to-light ratio $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ increasing as a power law of the luminosity. The required normalization and slope well agree with those estimated observationally for real galaxy clusters. We have discussed two possible causes for such a trend of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, namely a systematic increase of the galaxy mass-to-light ratio with cluster luminosity, or a decrease of the baryonic mass fraction for increasing cluster total mass, concluding that both the possibilities are consistent with the available observational data. In any case, it appears that the FJ, Kormendy and FP relations of nearby clusters of galaxies can be explained as the result of the cosmological collapse of density fluctuations at the appropriate scales, plus a systematic trend of the total mass-to-light ratio with the cluster mass. Note that this is by no means a trivial result: in fact, it is known that numerical simulations of galaxy dissipationless merging (where the mass-to-light ratio is kept fixed) do reproduce well the edge-on FP, but badly fail with the FJ and the Kormendy relations (NLC03b).

We next focused on the fact that Es follow a FJ relation with a significantly different slope ($`4`$) compared to that of clusters ($`2`$), but show a similar trend of the mass-to-light ratio with the system luminosity. We have discussed the implications of this observational evidences under the assumption that at the epoch of the detachment from the Hubble flow, $`M\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$ also at galactic scales, as required by standard cosmology, and taking into account several empirical and theoretical evidences suggesting that gas dissipation and merging must have played an important role in galaxy evolution. Since dissipationless merging and baryonic dissipation have competitive consequences on the system velocity dispersion, we argue that combined effects of these two processes are required to account for the slope of the FJ of elliptical galaxies. We therefore conclude that the scaling relations of Es might be the result of the cosmological collapse of density fluctuations at the epoch when galactic scales became non-linear, plus successive modifications due to (early-time) dissipative merging. This scenario seems to be supported also by the similarity between the slopes of the FJ and the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$-$`\sigma `$ relations, and between the peak of the star formation rate of the Universe and that of the quasar luminosity function.

Before to conclude we point out that, while no observational data are yet available for the scaling relations of galaxy clusters at high redshift, the results that we have obtained allow us to speculate on what could be expected. On one hand, the predictions of the top-hat model are the same at any redshift, and also weak homology of DM halos in numerical simulations appears to hold at any epoch: thus, if the dependence of the cluster $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ on $`L`$ changes accordingly to passive evolution, scaling relations with the same slopes should be found also at high redshift. Even if with some uncertainties, observational evidences for passive evolution of these cluster properties already exist. In fact, the characteristic luminosity of the cluster LF increases with redshift consistently with pure, passive luminosity evolution models (De Propris et al. 1999), and the same is found for the stellar mass-to-light ratio $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}`$ of elliptical galaxies, as derived from the studies of their FP up to redshift $`z=1.27`$ (e.g., van Dokkum & Franx 1996; Jørgensen et al 1999; Kelson et al. 2000; Treu, Møller & Bertin 2002; van Dokkum & Standford 2003). On the other hand, a more complicate evolution of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{gal}}\times M/M_{\mathrm{gal}}`$ with $`z`$ might also be expected, and thus the redshift variation of the FP zero-point and slope could give important information on cluster and galaxy evolution. Although the fraction of Es in clusters appears not to change with redshift, a substantial increase of the relative amount of spirals with respect to S0 galaxies at higher $`z`$ is reported (Dressler et al. 1997; Fasano et al. 2000). In addition, also $`M/M_{\mathrm{gal}}`$ might increase with $`z`$, if clusters form by continuous accretion of galaxies from the field, in a DM potential well that already settled on shorter time scales. Of course, a detailed prediction of the evolution of the cluster scaling relations in this latter case is much more difficult.

Due to the interest of the questions addressed above, it is apparent that with more available data (e.g., from the SDSS, RCS, MUNICS, 2dF, 2MASS surveys), a strong effort should be devoted to better determine the cluster scaling relations while, on theoretical ground, a larger set of simulated clusters, spanning a wider mass range and taking into account also the presence of gas, should be performed and analyzed for different choices of the cosmological parameters.

B.L. is grateful to Volker Springel, Simon White, Naoki Yoshida and Gary Mamon for useful discussions and for their help with the N-body simulations; Lauro Moscardini, Christophe Adami and Massimo Meneghetti are also acknowledged for interesting conversations. L.C. thanks Neta Bahcall and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, and A.C. thanks Sophie Maurogordato for useful discussions. The anonymous referee is acknowledged for useful comments that greatly improved the paper. This work has been partially supported by the Italian Space Agency grants ASI-I-R-105-00, ASI-I-R-037-01, and ASI-I-R-113-01, and by the Italian Ministery (MIUR) grants COFIN2000 “Halos and disks of galaxies”, and COFIN2001 “Clusters and groups of galaxies: the interplay between dark and baryonic matter”.


format: text

text:
# FORWARD-BACKWARD CHARGE ASYMMETRY AT VERY HIGH ENERGIES

## 1 Introduction

The forward-bacward asymmetry for the charged hadrons produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at high energies in vicinity of the $`Z`$ -boson mass has been the object of intensive theoretical and experimental investigation. It is interesting to make a theoretical analysis of this phenomenon for much higher enegies where the leading, double-logarithmic (DL) contributions come not only from integrating over virtual photon momenta but also from virtual $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons. Indeed, at the annihilation energies much higher than 100 Gev, when masses of virtual electroweak bosons are small compared to their momenta, the initial $`SU(2)`$x$`U(1)`$ symmetry is restored in a certain sense and accounting for higher loop DL contributions involving the $`W,Z`$ bosons is nonless imporatnt than the standard accounting for the photon DL contributions. The value of the asymmetry at such energies would be expressed rather through the Cazimir operators of the electroweak gauge group than through electric charges. In a sense, studing the forward-backward asymmetry at such enegries is one of the simplest ways to see the total effects of contributions of the electroweak radiative corrections of higher orders. Our theoretical study can be useful in future when Next linear colliders will explore $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at very high energies, probing further the Standard Model and eventually looking for New Physics.

In accordance with the present theoretical conceptions, we divide investigation of the annihilation into two stages: first we calculate the sub-process: $`e^+e^{}`$ -annihilation into a quark-antiquark pair (which is studied with perturbative methods) and then, numerically, account for hadronization effects which are quite different for converting the quarks into mesons and barions. We consider $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilate into two hadronic jets in the kinematics when the leading particles of every jet goes in cmf close to the beam axis, so they are within the cones with opening angles $`\theta 1`$ and the axes around the $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ directions. We obtain that the forward-backward asymmetry manifests itself as follows: the number of the hadrons with the positive electric charges, $`N_+`$ in the cone around the $`e^+`$ -direction exeeds the number of the negatively charged hadrons, $`N_{}`$ (see Ref. . It is depicted in Fig. 1. The opposite effect is true for the other cone, around the $`e^{}`$ direction. The space outside of the cones is neutral. The numerical evaluations of the asymmetry are plotted in Fig. 2 separately for the produced mesons and barions. In particular, Fig.2 shows that the value of the asymmetry is high enouph to be measured at energies $`1`$ TeV and grows steeply with energy.

In order to arrive at this result, let us consider first the basic sub-process of the annihilation: $`e^+(p_2)e^{}(p_1)`$ annihilation into a quark $`q(p_3)`$ and its antiparticle $`\overline{q}`$. All these particles can belong either to the $`SU(2)`$ doublets or to the singlets. Our first goal is to calculate the scattering amplitudes of the annihilation in the $`t`$\- kinematics where

$$s=(p_1+p_2)^2t=(p_3p_1)^2$$
(1)
and in the $`u`$\- kinematics:

$$s=(p_1+p_2)^2u=(p_4p_1)^2.$$
(2)
In order to account for DL contributions to all orders in the electroweak couplings, we use the evolution equations with respect to the infrared cut-off. This cut-off $`M`$ is chosen in the transverse momentum space so that momenta of all virtual particles obey

$$k_i>M.$$
(3)
Although only the Feynman graphs vith virtual photons can have the infrared divergencies, it is convenient to keep the restriction (3) for momenta of all virtual particles, assuming that

$$MM_ZM_W.$$
(4)
With assumptions of Eqs. (34), one can neglect all masses and be safe of the infrared singularities at the same moment. On the other hand, the scattering amplitudes now depend on $`M`$. It makes possible to evolute them in $`M`$ and to put $`M=M_ZM_W`$ in the final expressions. As DL contributions appear in the regions where $`k_i`$ obey the strong inequalities of the kind $`k_ik_j`$, it is always possible to find the virtual particle with minimal $`(k_{})`$ transverse momentum in every such a region. Obviously, only integration over $`k_{}`$ involves $`M`$ as the lowest limit. Integrations over other transverse momenta are $`M`$-independent. DL contributions of the softest particles can be factorized. It allows to compose infrared evolution equations (IREE) for the scattering amplitudes. The most difficult is the case when both the initial electron and the final quark belong to the $`SU(2)`$ doublets. In order to simplify the IREE, one can use the $`SU(2)`$ simmetry restored at such high energies and consider annihilation of lepton-antilepton pair into a quark-antiquark pair. After that, it is convenient to exapand the scattering amplitude into the sum of the irreducible $`SU(2)`$ representations, using the standard projection operators multiplied by the invariant amplitudes $`A_j,(j=1,2,3,4)`$. At last, in order to calculate the invariant amplitudes in kinematics (1, 2), it is convenient to use the Mellin transform

$$A_j=_ı\mathrm{}^ı\mathrm{}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi ı}\left(\frac{s}{\kappa }\right)^\omega F_j(\omega )$$
(5)
where $`\kappa =t,j=1,2`$ for $`A_j`$ in kinematics (1) and $`\kappa =u,j=3,4`$ when the kinematics is the $`u`$ -inematics of Eq. (1). In the case of the collinear kinematics where $`\kappa =M^2`$, amplitudes $`F_j`$ obey (we consider amplitudes with the positive signatures only):

$$\omega F_j(\omega )=a_j+\frac{b_j}{8\pi ^2}\frac{dF_j^{(+)}(\omega )}{d\omega }+\frac{c_j}{8\pi ^2}\left[F_j^{(+)}(\omega )\right]^2,$$
(6)
with $`a_j,b_j,c_j`$ being numerical factors:

$`a_1={\displaystyle \frac{3g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_1Y_2}{4}},a_2={\displaystyle \frac{g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_1Y_2}{4}},`$ (7)
$`a_3={\displaystyle \frac{3g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_1Y_2}{4}},a_4={\displaystyle \frac{g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_1Y_2}{4}},`$
$`b_1={\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(Y_1Y_2)^2}{4}},b_2={\displaystyle \frac{8g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(Y_1Y_2)^2}{4}},`$ (8)
$`b_3={\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(Y_1Y_2)^2}{4}},b_4={\displaystyle \frac{8g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(Y_1+Y_2)^2}{4}},`$
$$c_1=c_2=1,c_3=c_4=1.$$
(9)
Solutions to Eq. (6) can be expressed in terms of the Parabolic cylinder functions $`D_p`$:

$$F_j(\omega )=\frac{a_j}{\lambda _j}\frac{D_{p_j1}(\omega /\lambda _j)}{D_{p_j}(\omega /\lambda _j)}$$
(10)
where $`p_j=a_jc_j/b_j`$ and $`\lambda _j=\sqrt{b_j/(8\pi ^2)}`$.

When the scattering angles are becoming larger so that

$$s\kappa \mu ^2,$$
(11)
the invariant amplitudes $`A_j`$ are expressed in terms of $`F_j`$ in the following way:

$$A_j(\rho ,\kappa )=a_jS_j_ı\mathrm{}^ı\mathrm{}\frac{dl}{2\pi ı}e^{\lambda _jl(\rho \eta )}\frac{D_{p_j1}(l+\lambda _j\eta )}{D_{p_j}(l+\lambda _j\eta )}$$
(12)
where $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}(\kappa /\mu ^2)`$ and factors $`h_j`$ can be taken from Ref. :

$`h_1={\displaystyle \frac{3g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_lY_q}{2}},h_2={\displaystyle \frac{g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_lY_q}{2}},`$ (13)
$`h_3={\displaystyle \frac{3g^2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_lY_q}{2}},h_4={\displaystyle \frac{g^2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_lY_q}{2}}.`$
The factor $`S_j`$ in Eq. (12) is the Sudakov form factor. Actually it is a product of the Sudakov form factors of the leptons and of the quarks. As follows from Eqs. (8,13), Due to the gauge invariance, it does not depend on $`j`$, i.e. is same for all invariant amplitudes. It can be seen also explicitly from Eqs. (8,13),

$$S=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}g^2+\frac{Y_l^2+Y_q^2}{4}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\frac{\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}\right].$$
(14)
This form factor accumulates DL contributions of soft virtual EW bosons and vanishes in the final expressions for the cross sections when bremsstrahlung of soft EW bosons with the cmf energies $`ϵ_k`$, $`\mu <ϵ_k<\sqrt{\kappa }`$, is taken into account.

According to the results of Ref. , the amplitude for the forward $`e^+e^{}u\overline{u}`$ -annihilation, $`M_u^F`$ is expressed in terms of amplitudes $`A_3,A_4`$ of Eq. (12):

$$M_u^F=\frac{A_3+A_4}{2},$$
(15)
whereas the backward amplitude $`M_u^B`$ for the same quarks is equal to the amplitude $`A_4`$ of Eq. (12):

$$M_u^B=A_4.$$
(16)
Similarly, the forward amplitude $`M_d^F`$ for $`e^+e^{}d\overline{d}`$ is

$$M_d^F=\frac{A_1+A_2}{2},$$
(17)
while the backward amplitude for this process is

$$M_d^B=A_2.$$
(18)
We use the folloing terminology: by the forward kinematics for $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ -annihilation we mean that quarks with positive electric charges, $`u`$ and $`\overline{d}`$, are produced around the initial $`e^+`$ \- beam, in the cmf, within a cone with a small opening angle $`\theta `$,

$$1\theta \theta _0=\frac{2M}{\sqrt{s}}$$
(19)
By backward kinematics we means just the opposite – the electric charge scatters backwards in a cone with the same opening angles.

The differential cross section $`d\sigma _F`$ for the forward annihilation is

$$d\sigma _F=d\sigma ^{(0)}\left[|M_u^F|^2+|M_d^F|^2\right]d\sigma ^{(0)}\left[F_u+F_d\right],$$
(20)
and similarly, the differential cross section $`d\sigma _B`$ for the backward annihilation is

$$d\sigma _B=d\sigma ^{(0)}\left[|M_u^B|^2+|M_d^B|^2\right]d\sigma ^{(0)}\left[B_u+B_d\right],$$
(21)
where $`d\sigma ^{(0)}`$ stands for the Born cross section, though without couplings.We define the forward-backward asymmetry as:

$$A\frac{d\sigma _Fd\sigma _B}{d\sigma _F+d\sigma _B}=\frac{FB}{F+B}$$
(22)
where

$$F=F_u+F_d,B=B_u+B_d.$$
(23)
Contributions to the asymmetry from right leptons and quarks can be ealily obtained in a similar way. Then, using the standard programmes for hadronisation and doing numerical calculations, we obtain the forward-backward asymmetry for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into charged mesons and barions. The results are plotted in Fig. 2.

Finally, we would like to note that when the annihilation energy is high enouph to produce, in addition to the two quark jets, $`W`$ or $`Z`$ bosons with energies $``$ 100 GeV, it turnes out that the cross section $`\sigma ^{(n\gamma )}`$ of $`n`$ hard photon production, the cross section $`\sigma ^{(nZ)}`$ of $`nZ`$ boson production and the cross section $`\sigma ^{(nW)}`$ of $`nW`$ boson production obey very simple asymptotical relations (see Ref. :

$$\frac{\sigma ^{(nZ)}}{\sigma ^{(n\gamma )}}\mathrm{tan}^{2n}\theta _W,$$
(24)
$$\frac{\sigma ^{(n\gamma )}}{\sigma ^{(nW)}}s^{0.36}.$$
(25)
The ratios of these cross sections as functions of the annihilation energy are plotted in Figs. 3,4.

## 2 Acknowledgement

The work is supported by grants POCTI/FNU/49523/2002, SFRH/BD/6455/2001 and RSGSS-1124.2003.2 .


text:
# Pseudorapidity dependence of parton energy loss in relativistic heavy ion collisions

## Abstract

We analyze the recent data from the BRAHMS Collaboration on the pseudorapidity dependence of nuclear modification factors in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV by using the full three dimensional hydrodynamic simulations for the density effects on parton energy loss. We first compute the transverse spectra at $`\eta =0`$ and 2.2, and next take a ratio $`R_\eta =R_{AA}(\eta =2.2)/R_{AA}(\eta =0)`$, where $`R_{AA}`$ is a nuclear modification factor. It is shown that hydrodynamic components account for $`R_\eta 1`$ at low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ and that quenched pQCD components lead $`R_\eta <1`$ at high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ which are consistent with the data. Strong suppression at $`\eta =2.2`$ is compatible with the parton energy loss in the final state.

Recent data from Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) reveal that hadron spectra at high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ in central Au+Au collisions are strongly suppressed relative to the scaled $`pp`$ or large centrality spectra by the number of binary collisions phenix:pi0\_130 ; phenix:pi0\_200 ; star:highpt ; star:charged ; Adcox:2002pe  contrary to the enhancement in $`d`$+Au collisions rhic:dA:phenix ; rhic:dA:star ; rhic:dA:phobos ; brahms:eta . The RHIC data is consistent with the early predictions on jet quenching due to gluon bremsstrahlung induced by multiple scattering Gyulassy:1990ye  as a possible signal of deconfined nuclear matter, the quark gluon plasma (QGP) Wang:2003aw  (for a recent review, see Ref. Gyulassy:2003mc ). Observed suppression of away-side peak in dihadron spectra in central Au+Au collisions star:btob  is also considered to be due to jet quenching, while correlation spectra in $`d`$+Au collisions are the same as in $`pp`$ collisions rhic:dA:star , where it is not expected to create hot and dense matter. Large elliptic flow observed in high-$`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region is also considered to be a consequence of jet quenching Adler:2002ct ; Adler:2003kt . Phenomenological studies based on the parton energy loss Baier ; Wiedemann ; Zakharov ; Levai  are successful in describing various high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ hadron spectra at RHIC: suppression of single particle spectra VG ; jamal ; HIRANONARA ; Wang:btob , suppression of away-side correlation HIRANONARA3 ; Wang:btob , azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_\mathrm{T}`$ hadron spectra in non-central collisions Gyulassy:2000gk ; Gyulassy:2001kr ; Wang:btob ; HIRANONARA4  including centrality dependences Wang:btob .

In addition to those data, the BRAHMS Collaboration recently reports the pseudorapidity dependence of the nuclear modification factors and shows that the yields of high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ charged hadrons are strongly suppressed even at $`\eta =2.2`$ brahms:eta . Furthermore, it is also shown that the ratio $`R_\eta ^{CP}=R_{CP}(\eta =2.2)/R_{CP}(\eta =0)`$, where $`R_{CP}`$ is a ratio of central to most peripheral yields normalized by the number of binary collisions, is almost unity at $`p_\mathrm{T}<2`$ GeV/$`c`$ and $`R_\eta ^{CP}<1`$ at high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$. These data are the first results of high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ spectra in the forward rapidity region at RHIC and, thus, provide the novel opportunity to study how the dense matter is distributed in the longitudinal directions. Therefore, further systematic studies are necessary to confirm the presence of the jet quenching in the dense medium at RHIC. In this letter, we analyze $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ spectra at $`\eta =2.2`$ by employing the hydro+jet model HIRANONARA ; HIRANONARA2 ; HIRANONARA3 ; HIRANONARA4  and test if the scenario of jet quenching in the QGP phase is still consistent with data.

Hydrodynamics is found to be successful for the description of the soft part of the matter produced in Au+Au collisions at RHIC especially in midrapidity region ($`Y0`$Huovinen:2003fa . Motivated by these results, we also describe the space-time evolution of thermalized matter even in off-midrapidity region ($`Y0`$) by solving the equations for energy-momentum conservation in the full three-dimensional (3D) Bjorken coordinate $`(\tau ,x,y,\eta _\mathrm{s})`$ Hirano:2001eu ; HiranoTsuda . Here $`\tau =\sqrt{t^2z^2}`$ is the proper time and $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=(1/2)\mathrm{ln}[(t+z)/(tz)]`$ is the space-time rapidity. Even at RHIC energies, one cannot observe “central plateau Bjorken:1982qr ” in the rapidity distribution JHLEE  in Au+Au collisions. Note that a plateau-like structure in the pseudorapidity distribution observed at RHIC Bearden:2001qq ; Back:2001bq  simply comes from the Jacobian between rapidity and pseudorapidity. In addition, elliptic flow as a function of pseudorapidity shows a peak at midrapidity Back:2002gz . These data suggest that the full 3D hydrodynamic simulations are necessary for discussion on the global behavior in heavy ion collisions even at RHIC energies. Although our initial condition for longitudinal flow rapidity (defined as $`Y_\mathrm{f}=(1/2)\mathrm{ln}[(1+v_z)/(1v_z)]`$ where $`v_z`$ is the longitudinal flow velocity) is still assumed to be the exact scaling solution $`Y_\mathrm{f}(\tau _0,x,y,\eta _\mathrm{s})=\eta _\mathrm{s}`$, we obtain the rapidity dependent observables by taking an $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ dependent initial energy density distribution which is factorized by a function

$$H(\eta _\mathrm{s})=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\eta _\mathrm{s}\eta _{\mathrm{flat}}/2)^2}{2\eta _{\mathrm{Gauss}}^2}\theta (\eta _\mathrm{s}\eta _{\mathrm{flat}}/2)\right],$$
(1)
where $`\eta _{\mathrm{flat}}`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{Gauss}}`$ control the size of a flat (Bjorken-like) region near midrapidity and the width of Gaussian function in forward/backward rapidity respectively Akase:1990yd . The pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in central and semi-central collisions observed by BRAHMS Bearden:2001qq  are already reproduced by choosing $`\eta _{\mathrm{flat}}/2=2`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{Gauss}}=0.8`$ and also by taking account of local rapidity shift at each transverse coordinate $`\eta _{\mathrm{s0}}(x,y)`$ in Eq. (1HIRANONARA4 . For details on how to parametrize initial conditions in our hydrodynamic model, see Ref. HiranoTsuda . In hydrodynamic calculations, a partial chemical equilibrium (PCE) model with chemical freeze-out temperature $`T^{\mathrm{ch}}=170`$ MeV is employed for the hadronic phase to describe the early chemical freeze-out picture of hadronic matter HiranoTsuda . On the other hand, the QGP phase is assumed to be massless free partonic gas with the number of flavor $`N_f=3`$.

For the hard part of the model, we generate hard partons according to a pQCD parton model. We use PYTHIA 6.2 pythia  for the generation of momentum spectrum of jets through $`22`$ QCD hard processes. Initial and final state radiations are used to take into account the enhancement of higher-order contributions associated with multiple small-angle parton emission. The CTEQ5 leading order parton distribution function cteq5  is used. Hadrons are obtained from an independent fragmentation model option in PYTHIA. The $`K`$-factor $`K=2.5`$, the scale $`Q=p_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{jet}}/2`$ in the parton distribution function, and the primordial transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{T}^2_{NN}=1.2`$ GeV2/$`c^2`$ are used to fit the neutral pion transverse spectrum in $`pp`$ collisions at RHIC Adler:2003pb . UA1 data ua1  for charged hadrons are also well reproduced with this parameters in the transverse momentum range $`p_\mathrm{T}>2`$ GeV/$`c`$ as shown in Fig. 1. Independent fragmentation model is not applicable for the low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ transverse momentum range. Hence we use the Lund string model for the $`pp`$ reference when we compute nuclear modification factors at low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ ($`p_\mathrm{T}<2`$ GeV/$`c`$). EKS98 parametrization eks98  is employed to take into account nuclear shadowing effect. The Cronin enhancement is modeled by the multiple initial state scatterings as in Ref. XNWang:1998ww .

Initial transverse positions of jets are determined randomly according to the number of binary collision distribution. Initial longitudinal position of a parton is approximated by the boost invariant distribution Bjorken:1982qr . Jets are freely propagated up to the initial time $`\tau _0`$(=0.6 fm/$`c`$) of hydrodynamic simulations by neglecting the possible interactions in the pre-thermalization stages. Jets are assumed to travel with straight line trajectory in the medium.

Jets can suffer interaction with fluids and lose their energies. We employ the approximate first order formula (GLV formula) in opacity expansion from the reaction operator approach Levai  for the energy loss of partons in this work. The approximate first order formula in this approach can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=C_{\tau _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \rho (\tau ,𝒙\left(\tau \right))(\tau \tau _0)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2E_0}{\mu ^2L}\right).$$
(2)
Here we take $`L=3`$ fm and $`\mu =0.5`$ GeV. $`C=0.45`$ is an adjustable parameter and $`\rho (\tau ,𝒙)`$ is a thermalized parton density in the local rest frame of fluid elements in the hydro+jet approach noteweb . $`𝒙\left(\tau \right)`$ and $`E_0`$ are the position and the initial energy of a jet, respectively. The initial energy $`E_0`$ in Eq. (2) is Lorentz-boosted by the flow velocity and replaced by $`p_0^\mu u_\mu `$ where $`p_0^\mu `$ and $`u_\mu `$ are the initial four momentum of a jet and a local fluid velocity respectively. The parameters related to the propagation of partons are obtained by fitting the nuclear modification factor for the neutral pion by PHENIX phenix:pi0\_200  and are found to be consistent HIRANONARA3  with the back-to-back correlation data from STAR star:btob .

Let us start with the study of the space-time rapidity dependence of transverse dynamics from the full 3D hydrodynamics. In order to understand the dynamical effects on parton energy loss, we plot in Fig. 2 parton densities and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{long}}`$-weighted transverse flow velocities averaged over the QGP and mixed phases as a function of $`\tau `$ at $`\eta _s=0,2`$, and 3. Here a gamma factor of longitudinal flow is $`\gamma _{\mathrm{long}}=\mathrm{cosh}(Y_\mathrm{f})`$. Note that the quantity $`v_\mathrm{T}\gamma _{\mathrm{long}}`$ is independent of the space-time rapidity $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ when the initial longitudinal flow and the initial energy density obey the scaling solution $`Y_\mathrm{f}(\tau _0,x,y,\eta _\mathrm{s})=\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`e(\tau _0,x,y,\eta _\mathrm{s})=e(\tau _0,x,y)`$ respectively. We note that longitudinal flow from full 3D hydrodynamics remains to be close to the Bjorken flow: $`Y_f\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ at $`\eta _\mathrm{s}<3`$ within our initial conditions used in this work. As shown in the figure, the difference of the time evolutions of the thermalized parton density and the transverse flow velocity between $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=0`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=2`$ are practically tiny, since the initial scaling region reaches to $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=\eta _{\mathrm{flat}}/2=2`$ HIRANONARA5 . Thus, the dynamical effect on the jet energy loss at $`\eta =0`$ and 2.2 is expected to be the same, whereas the amount of jet energy loss at $`\eta =3`$ must be small because of the smaller parton density. As will be shown in Fig. 4, we should emphasize here that this does not mean $`R_{AA}(\eta =0)R_{AA}(\eta =2.2)`$.

We next show in Fig. 3 the transverse momentum distributions for charged hadrons from the hydro+jet model in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC. Thermal freeze-out temperature $`T^{\mathrm{th}}=100`$ MeV is used in the calculation. This choice is consistent with the PHENIX data at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV HiranoTsuda . Each spectrum is the sum of the soft component and the hard component. Before summation, the hard component is multiplied by a “switch” function Gyulassy:2000gk  $`\{1+\mathrm{tanh}[2(p_\mathrm{T}2)]\}/2`$ (where $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ is in the unit of GeV/$`c`$) in order to cut the unreliable components from the independent fragmentation scheme and also to obtain the smooth spectra. The hydrodynamic components are dominated in the range of $`p_\mathrm{T}<2`$ GeV/$`c`$. The slope of hadrons in low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region at $`\eta =0`$ is nearly the same as the one at $`\eta =2.2`$ as clearly seen in the bottom panel of Fig. 3 in which the ratio of the spectrum at $`\eta =2.2`$ to that at $`\eta =0`$ is plotted. This results from the similarity of transverse dynamics between $`\eta =0`$ and 2 as shown in Fig. 2. On the other hand, the slope from pQCD components in high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region becomes steeper as $`\eta `$ increases reflecting the original $`pp`$ spectra (see Fig. 1).

We now turn to the study of the nuclear modification factors $`R_{AA}`$ for charged hadrons defined by

$$R_{AA}=\frac{\frac{dN^{A+A}}{d^2p_\mathrm{T}d\eta }}{N_{\mathrm{coll}}\frac{dN^{p+p}}{d^2p_\mathrm{T}d\eta }},$$
(3)
where $`N_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ is a number of binary collisions. Figure 4 shows the nuclear modification factors $`R_{AA}`$ for charged hadrons at $`\eta =0`$, 2.2, and 3.25 in Au+Au collisions at RHIC for an impact parameter $`b=3.7`$ fm. The nuclear modification factor $`R_{AA}`$’s in low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region ($`p_\mathrm{T}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}`$ GeV/$`c`$), where the hydrodynamic component dominates, at $`\eta =0`$ and 2.2 are almost identical. This is due to the comparable time evolution of the parton density at $`\eta =0`$ and 2.2 in hydrodynamics as shown in Fig. 2. PYTHIA prediction reveals that the spectrum at low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ is very similar within $`\eta <2`$ up to a factor of 30% in $`pp`$ collisions as shown in Fig. 1. $`R_{AA}(\eta =0)>R_{AA}(\eta =2.2)`$ at high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ is a consequence of the steeper slope at $`\eta =2.2`$ compared to the slope at $`\eta =0`$ in pQCD. When the $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ slope is steep, the nuclear modification factor becomes sensitive to nuclear effects: a small shift of a spectrum is likely to produce a large effect on the ratio of the shifted spectrum to the original one. It should be noted that, due to the above reason, the nuclear modification factor from the Cronin effect at SPS energies Aggarwal:2001gn  is much larger than the one at RHIC energies rhic:dA:phenix ; rhic:dA:star ; rhic:dA:phobos ; brahms:eta . The nuclear modification factor at $`\eta =3.25`$ in the range $`p_\mathrm{T}<5`$ GeV/$`c`$ is larger than at midrapidity, because thermalized parton density at $`\eta =3.25`$ is about 40% smaller than at midrapidity. However, $`R_{AA}(\eta =3.25)`$ eventually becomes smaller than the one for $`\eta =0`$ or 2.2 in high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region. This is due to the much steeper slope at high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$.

We also plot the ratio $`R_\eta `$ defined by

$$R_\eta =\frac{R_{AA}(\eta =2.2)}{R_{AA}(\eta =0.0)},$$
(4)
which can be compared with the data from BRAHMS defined by $`R_\eta ^{CP}=R_{CP}(\eta =2.2)/R_{CP}(\eta =0.0)`$. Hydrodynamic predictions at very peripheral collisions are likely to be unreliable, since parton density is too small to justify the assumption of the local thermal system in Au+Au collisions at RHIC. In Fig. 4, $`R_\eta `$ is found to be almost unity in low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region and gradually decreases with $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ as consistent with data as expected in the above consideration.

One may worry about the nuclear shadowing effect on the $`R_\eta `$, since the accessible range of the parton momentum fraction $`x`$ in the parton distribution functions at $`\eta =2.2`$ is smaller than at midrapidity. However, nuclear shadowing effect on $`R_{AA}(\eta =2.2)<R_{AA}(\eta =0)`$ is found to be $`15`$ % around $`p_\mathrm{T}=2`$-3 GeV/$`c`$ within EKS98 parameterization. Other models for nuclear shadowing should be investigated elsewhere.

In order to disentangle the density effect from the “slope” effect among nuclear modification factors, we predict the elliptic flow parameter $`v_2=\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ for high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ charged hadrons in forward rapidity region as shown in Fig. 5. In this calculation, we only take account of the contributions from hard components. We choose the impact parameter as $`b=7.2`$ fm corresponding to 20-30% centrality. $`v_2`$ in high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region is generated by jet quenching Gyulassy:2000gk . The difference of path length causes the difference of the amount of parton energy loss in azimuthal directions in non-central collisions. Consequently, one can expect from Eq. (2) that the higher parton density results in the larger positive $`v_2`$ until $`v_2`$ reaches the limiting value Shuryak:2001me . As we expected, our prediction $`v_2(\eta =3.25)<v_2(\eta =0)`$ is a clear evidence of the density effect on the parton energy loss. We comment on our prediction on the $`v_2`$ at high $`p_\mathrm{T}>5`$ GeV/$`c`$ at midrapidity. Our prediction is similar to the results of the recent work Drees:2003zh  in which they found that the azimuthal anisotropy of high $`p_T`$ particles underestimate for a realistic nuclear density profile although hard-sphere nuclear profile looks consistent with the data Wang:btob .

In summary, we have studied the pseudorapidity dependence of the nuclear modification factors for charged hadrons within the hydro+jet model. As well as the yield of charged hadrons, the radial flow at $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=2`$ is found to be very similar to that at $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=0`$. This results in $`R_\eta 1`$ at $`p_\mathrm{T}<2`$ GeV/$`c`$. $`R_\eta <1`$ in high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region can be understood by the steeper slope of $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ spectrum at $`\eta =2.2`$ than at $`\eta =0`$ from the pQCD components. This suggests that the longitudinal region of dense partonic matter produced in Au+Au collisions reaches to $`\eta _\mathrm{s}2`$ and that strong hadron suppression at off-midrapidity is consistent with the final state parton energy loss in the medium. This reminds us the previous analysis of pseudorapidity dependence of elliptic flow at the RHIC energy Hirano:2001eu ; HiranoTsuda  in which elliptic flow can be reproduced by hydrodynamics only in the region $`\eta \stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}`$. We also predicted the elliptic flow parameter $`v_2`$ for high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ charged hadrons in both midrapidity and forward rapidity regions. We found the strong rapidity dependence of $`v_2(p_\mathrm{T})`$.

It would be very interesting to see how robust the present results are in more realistic analysis. For example, the lattice studies predict the non-trivial behavior of screening mass in the vicinity of phase transition region Kaczmarek:1999mm . This affects the space-time evolution of the parton density in the energy loss formula in Eq. (2). The parton density is multiplied by the correction factor for the effective degree of freedom $`\mu ^2/\mu _0^2`$ Pisarski:2002ji  where $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mu `$ are, respectively, perturbative and non-perturbative screening mass. The reduction of energy loss due to the non-perturbative behavior of the screening mass is expected to be large in forward rapidity region where the initial parton density is not so large. This modification causes the change of equation of state (EOS) as well as the amount of the parton energy loss. Hence we may need to use different initial conditions and simulate the hydrodynamic model with a more realistic EOS. This is beyond the scope of this paper although it should be revisited elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of T.H. is supported by RIKEN. Y.N.’s research is supported by the DOE under Contract No. DE-FG03-93ER40792.