Measurement of the forward energy flow in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV

The LHCb collaboration Aaij, R ; Abellan Beteta, C ; Adametz, A ; et al.
Eur.Phys.J.C 73 (2013) 2421, 2013.
Inspire Record 1208105 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.61691

The energy flow created in pp collisions at is studied within the pseudorapidity range 1.9<η<4.9 with data collected by the LHCb experiment. The measurements are performed for inclusive minimum-bias interactions, hard scattering processes and events with an enhanced or suppressed diffractive contribution. The results are compared to predictions given by Pythia-based and cosmic-ray event generators, which provide different models of soft hadronic interactions.

0 data tables match query

Study of the Underlying Event at Forward Rapidity in pp Collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 0.9, 2.76, and 7 TeV

The CMS collaboration Chatrchyan, Serguei ; Khachatryan, Vardan ; Sirunyan, Albert M ; et al.
JHEP 04 (2013) 072, 2013.
Inspire Record 1218372 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.66750

The underlying event activity in proton-proton collisions at forward pseudorapidity (-6.6 < eta < -5.2) is studied with the CMS detector at the LHC, using a novel observable: the ratio of the forward energy density, dE/d(eta), for events with a charged-particle jet produced at central pseudorapidity (abs(eta[jet]) < 2) to the forward energy density for inclusive events. This forward energy density ratio is measured as a function of the central jet transverse momentum, pt, at three different pp centre-of-mass energies (sqrt(s) = 0.9, 2.76, and 7 TeV). In addition, the sqrt(s) evolution of the forward energy density is studied in inclusive events and in events with a central jet. The results are compared to those of Monte Carlo event generators for pp collisions and are discussed in terms of the underlying event. Whereas the dependence of the forward energy density ratio on jet pt at each sqrt(s) separately can be well reproduced by some models, all models fail to simultaneously describe the increase of the forward energy density with sqrt(s) in both inclusive events and in events with a central jet.

0 data tables match query

Measurement of energy flow, cross section and average inelasticity of forward neutrons produced in $\mathrm{\sqrt{s} = 13 TeV}$ proton-proton collisions with the LHCf Arm2 detector

The LHCf collaboration Adriani, O. ; Berti, E. ; Bonechi, L. ; et al.
JHEP 07 (2020) 016, 2020.
Inspire Record 1783943 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.130268

In this paper, we report the measurement of the energy flow, the cross section and the average inelasticity of forward neutrons (+ antineutrons) produced in $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV proton-proton collisions. These quantities are obtained from the inclusive differential production cross section, measured using the LHCf Arm2 detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The measurements are performed in six pseudorapidity regions: three of them ($\eta > 10.75$, $8.99 < \eta < 9.21$ and $8.80 < \eta < 8.99$), albeit with smaller acceptance and larger uncertainties, were already published in a previous work, whereas the remaining three ($10.06 < \eta < 10.75$, $9.65 < \eta < 10.06$ and $8.65 < \eta < 8.80$) are presented here for the first time. The analysis was carried out using a data set acquired in June 2015 with a corresponding integrated luminosity of $\mathrm{0.194~nb^{-1}}$. Comparing the experimental measurements with the expectations of several hadronic interaction models used to simulate cosmic ray air showers, none of these generators resulted to have a satisfactory agreement in all the phase space selected for the analysis. The inclusive differential production cross section for $\eta > 10.75$ is not reproduced by any model, whereas the results still indicate a significant but less serious deviation at lower pseudorapidities. Depending on the pseudorapidity region, the generators showing the best overall agreement with data are either SIBYLL 2.3 or EPOS-LHC. Furthermore, apart from the most forward region, the derived energy flow and cross section distributions are best reproduced by EPOS-LHC. Finally, even if none of the models describe the elasticity distribution in a satisfactory way, the extracted average inelasticity is consistent with the QGSJET II-04 value, while most of the other generators give values that lie just outside the experimental uncertainties.

0 data tables match query