Comparative analysis of charged particle distributions and model predictions for underlying events with track-based selection in 13 TeV pp collisions

IF 2.8 3区 物理与天体物理 Q2 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
H. I. Alrebdi, M. Ajaz, M. Waqas, M. A. Ahmad, Maryam Waqar, A. M. Quraishi, J. H. Baker, S. Jagnandan, A. Jagnandan
{"title":"Comparative analysis of charged particle distributions and model predictions for underlying events with track-based selection in 13 TeV pp collisions","authors":"H. I. Alrebdi,&nbsp;M. Ajaz,&nbsp;M. Waqas,&nbsp;M. A. Ahmad,&nbsp;Maryam Waqar,&nbsp;A. M. Quraishi,&nbsp;J. H. Baker,&nbsp;S. Jagnandan,&nbsp;A. Jagnandan","doi":"10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06319-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of charged particle distributions that are particularly sensitive to underlying events. We employ simulations from three distinct models: EPOS4, Pythia8.3, and QGSJETII. These simulations are subsequently compared to experimental measurements obtained by the ATLAS experiment in proton–proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of <span>\\(\\sqrt{s} = 13\\)</span> TeV. The analysis is conducted under specific kinematic conditions, with a focus on physical observables within the region defined by <span>\\(|\\eta | &lt; 2.5\\)</span> and <span>\\(p_{T} &gt; 0.5\\)</span> GeV. A comparison of model predictions with data reveals that EPOS4 and Pythia8.3 consistently provide favorable results for various distributions, including mean charged particle densities, mean multiplicities, and average transverse momentum. The QGSJETII-04 model performs well at low <span>\\(p^{lead}_{\\perp }\\)</span> and low <span>\\(N_{ch}\\)</span>, but under-predicts data in some distributions. EPOS4 stands out as having more accurate results, attributed to its detailed treatment of parton saturation and hydrodynamic effects, while Pythia8.3 benefits from parameters such as color reconnection and multi-parton interaction. The QGSJET focuses on cosmic-ray air showers and less on collective effects, highlighting the need for careful model selection to accurately represent particle collision physics. Furthermore, we employ a thermodynamically consistent Tsallis distribution function to extract parameter values for comparison purposes. Our findings reveal that the parameter values extracted from the fit function align more closely with the data for the EPOS4 and Pythia8.3 models, indicating that these two models provide a better representation of the experimental observations as compared to QGSJETII-04.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":792,"journal":{"name":"The European Physical Journal Plus","volume":"140 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Physical Journal Plus","FirstCategoryId":"4","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06319-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of charged particle distributions that are particularly sensitive to underlying events. We employ simulations from three distinct models: EPOS4, Pythia8.3, and QGSJETII. These simulations are subsequently compared to experimental measurements obtained by the ATLAS experiment in proton–proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. The analysis is conducted under specific kinematic conditions, with a focus on physical observables within the region defined by \(|\eta | < 2.5\) and \(p_{T} > 0.5\) GeV. A comparison of model predictions with data reveals that EPOS4 and Pythia8.3 consistently provide favorable results for various distributions, including mean charged particle densities, mean multiplicities, and average transverse momentum. The QGSJETII-04 model performs well at low \(p^{lead}_{\perp }\) and low \(N_{ch}\), but under-predicts data in some distributions. EPOS4 stands out as having more accurate results, attributed to its detailed treatment of parton saturation and hydrodynamic effects, while Pythia8.3 benefits from parameters such as color reconnection and multi-parton interaction. The QGSJET focuses on cosmic-ray air showers and less on collective effects, highlighting the need for careful model selection to accurately represent particle collision physics. Furthermore, we employ a thermodynamically consistent Tsallis distribution function to extract parameter values for comparison purposes. Our findings reveal that the parameter values extracted from the fit function align more closely with the data for the EPOS4 and Pythia8.3 models, indicating that these two models provide a better representation of the experimental observations as compared to QGSJETII-04.

13 TeV pp碰撞中带电粒子分布的比较分析和基于轨迹选择的潜在事件模型预测
在这项研究中,我们对对潜在事件特别敏感的带电粒子分布进行了全面的分析。我们使用三个不同的模型进行模拟:EPOS4、Pythia8.3和QGSJETII。这些模拟结果随后与ATLAS实验在质心能量为\(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV的质子-质子碰撞中获得的实验测量结果进行了比较。分析是在特定的运动学条件下进行的,重点是在\(|\eta | < 2.5\)和\(p_{T} > 0.5\) GeV定义的区域内的物理观测值。将模型预测结果与实测数据进行比较,发现EPOS4和Pythia8.3在各种分布(包括平均带电粒子密度、平均多重度和平均横向动量)下均能得到较好的结果。QGSJETII-04模型在低\(p^{lead}_{\perp }\)和低\(N_{ch}\)下表现良好,但在某些分布下预测不足。EPOS4因其对部分子饱和度和流体动力效应的详细处理而具有更准确的结果,而Pythia8.3则受益于颜色重连和多部分子相互作用等参数。QGSJET专注于宇宙射线空气阵雨,而不是集体效应,强调需要仔细选择模型以准确地代表粒子碰撞物理。此外,我们采用热力学一致的Tsallis分布函数来提取参数值以进行比较。结果表明,从拟合函数中提取的参数值与EPOS4和Pythia8.3模型的数据更接近,这表明与QGSJETII-04相比,这两个模型能更好地表征实验观测结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
The European Physical Journal Plus
The European Physical Journal Plus PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
8.80%
发文量
1150
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The aims of this peer-reviewed online journal are to distribute and archive all relevant material required to document, assess, validate and reconstruct in detail the body of knowledge in the physical and related sciences. The scope of EPJ Plus encompasses a broad landscape of fields and disciplines in the physical and related sciences - such as covered by the topical EPJ journals and with the explicit addition of geophysics, astrophysics, general relativity and cosmology, mathematical and quantum physics, classical and fluid mechanics, accelerator and medical physics, as well as physics techniques applied to any other topics, including energy, environment and cultural heritage.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信