{"@context":"http://schema.org","@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1","@reverse":{"isBasedOn":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","identifier":{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"URL","value":"https://inspirehep.net/literature/1932460"}},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2022)177","@type":"JournalArticle"}]},"@type":"Dataset","additionalType":"Collection","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"CMS Collaboration"},"creator":{"@type":"Organization","name":"CMS Collaboration"},"datePublished":"2021","description":"A study of inclusive four-jet production in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is presented. The transverse momentum of jets within abs(eta) < 4.7 reaches down to 35, 30, 25, and 20 GeV for the first-, second-, third-, and fourth-leading jet, respectively. Differential cross sections are measured as functions of the jet transverse momentum and pseudorapidity, and several other observables that describe the angular correlations between the jets. It is found that the measured distributions show sensitivity to different aspects of the underlying event, parton shower, and matrix element calculations. In particular, the interplay between decorrelations caused by parton shower and double-parton scattering contributions is shown to be important. The double-parton scattering contribution is extracted by means of a template fit of the distributions for single-parton scattering obtained from Monte Carlo event generators and a double-parton scattering distribution constructed from inclusive single-jet events in data. Values of the effective cross section are calculated and discussed in view of previous measurements and of their dependence on the models used to describe the single-parton scattering background.","hasPart":[{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t1","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 2a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t2","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 2b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t3","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 2c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t4","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 2d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t5","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 3a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t6","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 3b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t7","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 3c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t8","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 3d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t9","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been...","name":"Figure 4a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t10","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been...","name":"Figure 4b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t11","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been...","name":"Figure 4c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t12","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been...","name":"Figure 4d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t13","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes....","name":"Figure 5a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t14","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes....","name":"Figure 5b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t15","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models","name":"Figure 6a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t16","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models","name":"Figure 6b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t17","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 6c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t18","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models","name":"Figure 6d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t19","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models","name":"Figure 7a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t20","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models","name":"Figure 7b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t21","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models","name":"Figure 7c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t22","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models","name":"Figure 7d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t23","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where...","name":"Figure 8a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t24","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin, distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where...","name":"Figure 8b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t25","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaY and distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions...","name":"Figure 8c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t26","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where...","name":"Figure 8d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t27","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a...","name":"Figure 9a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t28","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a...","name":"Figure 9b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t29","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 10a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t30","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 10b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t31","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 10c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t32","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 10d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t33","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 11a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t34","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 11b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t35","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 11c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t36","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 11d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t37","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have...","name":"Figure 12a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t38","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have...","name":"Figure 12b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t39","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have...","name":"Figure 12c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t40","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have...","name":"Figure 12d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t41","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions havebeen...","name":"Figure 12e"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t42","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have...","name":"Figure 12f"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t43","@type":"Dataset","description":"The DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample compared to predictions from the pure DPS sample in PYTHIA 8...","name":"Figure 13"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t44","@type":"Dataset","description":"The results of the template fit for the POWHEG (PW) NLO 2 -> 2 model without the hard MPI removed....","name":"Figure 14"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t45","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 4a (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t46","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 4b (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t47","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 4c (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t48","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 4d (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t49","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 5a (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t50","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.","name":"Figure 5b (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t51","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.","name":"Figure 8a (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t52","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.","name":"Figure 8b (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t53","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.","name":"Figure 8c (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t54","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.","name":"Figure 8d (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t55","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.","name":"Figure 9a (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t56","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.","name":"Figure 9b (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t57","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 12a (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t58","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 12b (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t59","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 12c (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t60","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 12d (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t61","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 12e (supplementary)"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.102460.v1/t62","@type":"Dataset","description":"Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.","name":"Figure 12f (supplementary)"}],"identifier":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"HEPDataRecord","value":"https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1932460?version=1"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"HEPDataRecordAlt","value":"https://www.hepdata.net/record/102460"}],"inLanguage":"en","name":"Measurement of double-parton scattering in inclusive production of four jets with low transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV","provider":{"@type":"Organization","name":"HEPData"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"HEPData"},"url":"https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1932460?version=1","version":1}