\begin{document}$ \sqrt{s} = 7 $\end{document} TeV is conducted. Various Monte Carlo (MC) event generators, including Pythia8.308, EPOS1.99, EPOSLHC, EPOS4 \begin{document}$_{\rm Hydro}$\end{document}, and EPOS4\begin{document}$_{\rm noHydro}$\end{document}, are employed to predict particle production. The predictions from these models are compared with experimental data from the CMS collaboration. The charged particles are categorized into those associated with underlying events and those linked to jets, and the analysis is restricted to charged particles with \begin{document}$ |\eta| < 2.4 $\end{document} and \begin{document}$ p_{T} > 0.25 $\end{document} GeV/c. By comparing the MC predictions with CMS data, we find that EPOS\begin{document}$4_{\rm Hydro}$\end{document}, EPOSLHC, and Pythia8 consistently reproduce the experimental results for all charged particles, underlying events, intrajets, and leading charged particles. For charged jet rates with \begin{document}$p_{T}^{\rm ch.jet} > 5$\end{document} GeV/c, EPOS4\begin{document}$_{\rm Hydro}$\end{document} and Pythia8 perform exceptionally well. In the case of charged jet rates with \begin{document}$p_{T}^{\rm ch.jet} > 30$\end{document} GeV/c, EPOSLHC reproduces satisfactorily good results, whereas EPOS4 \begin{document}$_{\rm Hydro}$\end{document}exhibits good agreement with the data at higher charged particle multiplicities compared to the other models. This can be attributed to the conversion of energy into flow when "Hydro=on," leading to an increase in multiplicity. The EPOSLHC model describes the data better owing to the new collective flow effects, correlated flow treatment, and parameterization compared to EPOS1.99. However, the examination of the jet \begin{document}$ p_{T} $\end{document} spectrum and normalized charged \begin{document}$ p_{T} $\end{document} density reveals that EPOS4\begin{document}$_{\rm Hydro}$\end{document}, EPOS4\begin{document}$_{\rm noHydro}$\end{document}, and EPOSLHC exhibit good agreement with the experimental results, whereas Pythia8 and EPOS1.99 do not perform as well owing to the lack of correlated flow treatment."> Comparative analysis of jet and underlying event properties across various models as a function of charged particle multiplicity at 7 TeV -
  • [1]

    B. Blok, C. D. Jäkel, M. Strikmanet al., JHEP12, 074 (2017), arXiv:1708.08241[hep-ph]

  • [2]

    B. Blok and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Lett. B795, 259 (2019), arXiv:1812.04113[hep-ph]

  • [3]

    Muhammad Ajazet al., Chin. Phys. C48, 053108 (2024)

  • [4]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, X. Liuet al., Phys. Lett. B793, 41 (2019)

  • [5]

    F. A. Dreyer, L. Necib, G. Soyezet al., J. High Energ. Phys.2018, 93 (2018)

  • [6]

    W. Kittelet al., Hackensack U.S.A. (2005)

  • [7]

    V. Khachatryanet al., JHEP01, 079 (2011)

  • [8]

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, JHEP05, 026 (2006)

  • [9]

    P. Bartalini, E. L. Berger, B. Bloket al., arXiv:1111.0469[hep-ph]

  • [10]

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelmanet al., Phys. Rep.97, 31 (1983)

  • [11]

    T. Sjöstrand, Nucl. Phys. B248, 469 (1984)

  • [12]

    T. Sjostrand, Phys. Lett. B157, 321 (1985)

  • [13]

    V. Khachatryanet al., JHEP09, 091 (2010), arXiv:1009.4122[hep-ex]

  • [14]

    T. Sjöstrand and P. Z. Skands, Eur. Phys. J. C39, 129 (2005)

  • [15]

    T. Sjöstrand and M. van Zijl, Phys. Rev. D36, 2019 (1987)

  • [16]

    R. Corke and T. Sjöstrand, JHEP3, 32 (2011)

  • [17]

    P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3024 (2014)

  • [18]

    H. I. Alrebdiet al., Chin. J. Phys.89, 1669 (2024)

  • [19]

    P. Z. Skands, arXiv:1308.2813

  • [20]

    M. Waqaset al., Chin. J. Phys.87, 284 (2024)

  • [21]

    P.-P. Yanget al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.49, 055110 (2022)

  • [22]

    M. Dobbs and J. B. Hansen, Comput. Phys. Commun.134, 41 (2001)

  • [23]

    K. Werner, F. M. Liu, and T. Pierog, Phys. Rev. C74, 044902 (2006)

  • [24]

    H. J. Drescheret al., Phys. Rep.93, 350 (2001)

  • [25]

    T. Pieroget al., Phys. Rev. C92, 034906 (2015)

  • [26]

    S. Ullahet al., Sci. Rep.9, 11811 (2019)

  • [27]

    T. Pierog and K. Werner, Proc. of the 30th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Vol. 4 (Mexico, 2008), pp. 629–632

  • [28]

    K. Werneret al., arXiv:2107.12368

  • [29]

    K. Werner and B. Guiot, arXiv:2306.02396

  • [30]

    V. N. Gribov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53, 654 (1967)

  • [31]

    V. N. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP29, 483 (1969)

  • [32]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15, 438 (1972)

  • [33]

    V. A. Abramovsky, V. N. Gribov, and O. V. Kancheli, Yad. Fiz.18, 595 (1973)

  • [34]

    M. Waqaset al., Results in Physics57, 107325 (2024)

  • [35]

    A. Buckleyet al., Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 2803 (2013)

  • [36]

    S. Chatrchyanet al., Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2674 (2013)

Baidu
map