“CGC” models vs. data

Foreword: High pT Au+Au at y = 0 at RHIC is above Qs ~ 1-2 GeV/c (straight application of CGC arguable in 1st instance): Need of “evolved” approaches: MLV (“pure” CGC)  KLM (extension into “DGLAP” region).
Magnitude of Au+Au suppression at y = 0  saturated (evolved) Au wave function (KLM). But: no suppression expected in other calculations (e.g. Baier, Wiedemann et al.).
Centrality dependence of Au+Au suppr.  Npart -like scaling observed.
Dissapeareance of away-side angular correlations (monojet prod.).
Some deficit (RdA~ 0.75) in d+Au collisions at y = 0 expected in “evolved CGC” models (which described the Au+Au case).
Cronin enhancement in d+Au at y ~ 0 in MLV-based models (J.Jalilian-Marian, and Baier, Wiedemann et al.).
Suppression of high pT hadro-production in d+Au at y ≈ 3. (x~10-3) in all CGC aproximations (kinemat. regime where CGC can be safely applied).

Foreword: High pT Au+Au at y = 0 at RHIC is above Qs ~ 1-2 GeV/c (straight application of CGC arguable in 1st instance): Need of “evolved” approaches: MLV (“pure” CGC)  KLM (extension into “DGLAP” region).