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, M. Ajaz, M. Waqas, M. A. Ahmad, Maryam Waqar, A. M. Quraishi, J. H. Baker, S. Jagnandan, 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 | < 2.5\\)</span> and <span>\\(p_{T} > 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.
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.