Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-FSQ-18-001 | ||
| Measurement of the average very forward energy as a function of the track multiplicity at central rapidities in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| March 2019 | ||
| Abstract: The average total energy as well as the hadronic and electromagnetic components of it are measured with the CMS detector at pseudorapidities $ -6.6<\eta<-5.2 $ in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV. The results are presented as a function of the multiplicity of charged particle tracks in the region $|\eta|< $ 2. This measurement is sensitive to correlations induced by the underlying event structure over very wide pseudorapidity regions. We test Monte Carlo event generator predictions commonly used in collider and ultra-high energy cosmic ray physics with respect to these new data. It is very interesting that some of the most recent event generator tunes have the largest tension with respect to the data. | ||
|
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, EPJC 79 (2019) 893. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. |
||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Top panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter normalised to that in the first bin ($N_{\mathrm {ch}} < $ 10) as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown as black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Top panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter normalised to that in the first bin ($N_{\mathrm {ch}} < $ 10) as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown as black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Top panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter normalised to that in the first bin ($N_{\mathrm {ch}} < $ 10) as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown as black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-c:
Top panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter normalised to that in the first bin ($N_{\mathrm {ch}} < $ 10) as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown as black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-d:
Top panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average total energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter normalised to that in the first bin ($N_{\mathrm {ch}} < $ 10) as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown as black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Top panel: Average electromagnetic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average hadronic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Top panel: Average electromagnetic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average hadronic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Top panel: Average electromagnetic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average hadronic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-c:
Top panel: Average electromagnetic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average hadronic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-d:
Top panel: Average electromagnetic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. Bottom panel: Average hadronic energy reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. In all figures, the data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. The predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Ratio of average electromagnetic and hadronic energies reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. The data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. Predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Ratio of average electromagnetic and hadronic energies reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. The data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. Predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Ratio of average electromagnetic and hadronic energies reconstructed in the CASTOR calorimeter as a function of the number of reconstructed tracks for $ {| \eta |} < $ 2. The data are shown with black circles and the corresponding systematic uncertainties with a gray band; horizontal bars are used to indicate the bin width. Predictions of various event generators are compared to the data, which are the same in both panels. The bands associated with the model predictions illustrate the model uncertainty. |
| Summary |
| The average energy per event in the pseudorapidity region $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$ has been measured as a function of the observed central track multiplicity ($|\eta|< $ 2) in proton-proton collision at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Data recorded during the first days of the LHC Run 2, with low beam intensities, are used. The measurement is presented in terms of the total energy as well as its electromagnetic and hadronic components. The very forward region covered by the data contains the highest energy densities studied in proton-proton collisions at the LHC. This makes the data in particular relevant for improving the modeling of multiparticle production in event generators used for the simulation of ultra-high energy cosmic ray air showers. The observables introduced provide a new approach to characterise particle production, and to study the properties of the underlying event. The measured average total energy as function of the track multiplicity is described with only minor tension by all models. This is a very good indication that underlying event parameter tunes performed at mid-rapidity can be extrapolated to the very forward direction within experimental uncertainties. However, it is also found that in a shape analysis of the same data we see very significant model differences and partly large deviations from the data. Thus, there is remaining opportunity to further improve the particle production models in this very forward phase space. Among all models, SIBYLL 2.1 shows the best reproduction of the measured multiplicity dependence of the average total energy. The data is also presented separately for the average electromagnetic and hadronic energy per event as a function of central track multiplicity. This is useful to study different underlying particle production mechanisms, since the former is mostly due to decaying neutral pions, and the latter related to the production of non-resonant hadrons; most commonly charged pions. We find a general good description of all models of the electromagnetic energy -- with the exception of SIBYLL 2.3c. Notably, the predicted energy in hadrons reveals a significantly larger spread compared to the electromagnetic energy between the different models. The data are also presented in terms of the ratio between the electromagnetic and hadronic energies. The data exhibit a larger fraction of electromagnetic energy compared to the models, and disagree with the two most recent model tunes, SIBYLL 2.3c and PYTHIA 8 CP5. This deficiency implies an increased difficulty to solve the muon deficit in ultra-high energy air shower simulations since more energy will be channelled into the electromagnetic part of the cascade and will subsequently be lost for the generation of further hadrons [15]. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | I. Sarcevic, S. D. Ellis, and P. Carruthers | QCD minijet cross sections | PRD 40 (1989) 1446 | |
| 2 | T. Sjostrand and M. van Zijl | A multiple interaction model for the event structure in hadron collisions | PRD 36 (1987) 2019 | |
| 3 | R. Corke and T. J. Sjostrand | Interleaved parton showers and tuning prospects | JHEP 03 (2011) 032 | 1011.1759 |
| 4 | P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo | Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune | EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 | 1404.5630 |
| 5 | K. Akiba et al. | LHC forward physics | JPG 43 (2016) 110201 | 1611.05079 |
| 6 | K. Werner, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog | Analyzing radial flow features in p-Pb and p-p collisions at several TeV by studying identified-particle production with the event generator EPOS3 | PRC 89 (2014) 064903 | 1312.1233 |
| 7 | V. Andreev et al. | Performance studies of a full-length prototype for the CASTOR forward calorimeter at the CMS experiment | EPJC 67 (2010) 601 | |
| 8 | CMS Collaboration | Study of the underlying event at forward rapidity in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 0.9, 2.76, and 7 TeV | JHEP 04 (2013) 072 | CMS-FWD-11-003 1302.2394 |
| 9 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inclusive energy spectrum in the very forward direction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 08 (2017) 046 | CMS-FSQ-16-002 1701.08695 |
| 10 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of charged-particle distributions sensitive to the underlying event in $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC | JHEP 03 (2017) 157 | 1701.05390 |
| 11 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the underlying event activity in inclusive Z boson production in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2018) 032 | CMS-FSQ-16-008 1711.04299 |
| 12 | D. d'Enterria et al. | Constraints from the first LHC data on hadronic event generators for ultra-high energy cosmic-ray physics | Astropart. Phys. 35 (2011) 98--113 | 1101.5596 |
| 13 | Pierre Auger Collaboration | Muons in air showers at the Pierre Auger Observatory: Mean number in highly inclined events | PRD 91 (2015) 032003, ] | 1408.1421 |
| 14 | Pierre Auger Collaboration | Testing hadronic interactions at ultrahigh energies with air showers measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory | PRL 117 (2016) 192001 | 1610.08509 |
| 15 | R. Ulrich, R. Engel, and M. Unger | Hadronic multiparticle production at ultra-high energies and extensive air showers | PRD 83 (2011) 054026 | 1010.4310 |
| 16 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | CMS-00-001 |
| 17 | CMS-CASTOR Collaboration, P. Gottlicher | Design and test beam studies for the CASTOR calorimeter of the CMS experiment | NIMA 623 (2010) 225 | |
| 18 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 19 | T. Sjostrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | CPC 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements | EPJC 76 (2016) 155 | CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815 |
| 21 | R. Ciesielski and K. Goulianos | MBR Monte Carlo Simulation in PYTHIA8 | PoS ICHEP2012 (2013) 301 | 1205.1446 |
| 22 | T. Pierog et al. | EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider | PRC 92 (2015) 034906 | 1306.0121 |
| 23 | E.-J. Ahn et al. | Cosmic ray interaction event generator SIBYLL 2.1 | PRD80 (2009) 094003 | 0906.4113 |
| 24 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT4---a simulation toolkit | NIMA 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 25 | S. Ostapchenko | Monte carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced pomeron scheme: QGSJET-II model | PRD 83 (2011) 014018 | 1010.1869 |
| 26 | F. Riehn et al. | The hadronic interaction model SIBYLL 2.3c and Feynman scaling | PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 301 | 1709.07227 |
| 27 | M. Bahr et al. | Herwig++ Physics and Manual | EPJC 58 (2008) 639 | 0803.0883 |
| 28 | J. Bellm et al. | Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note | EPJC 76 (2016) 196 | 1512.01178 |
| 29 | S. Gieseke, F. Loshaj, and P. Kirchgae\sser | Soft and diffractive scattering with the cluster model in $ \sc $ herwig | EPJC 77 (2017) 156 | 1612.04701 |
| 30 | CMS Collaboration | Pseudorapidity distribution of charged hadrons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | PLB 751 (2015) 143 | CMS-FSQ-15-001 1507.05915 |
| 31 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of energy flow at large pseudorapidities in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 0.9 and 7 TeV | JHEP 11 (2011) 148, ] | CMS-FWD-10-011 1110.0211 |
| 32 | A. Buckley et al. | Rivet user manual | CPC 184 (2013) 2803 | 1003.0694 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|