SciPost Submission Page
First measurement of the forward rapidity gap distribution in pPb collisions at 8 TeV
by Dmitry E. Sosnov
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Dmitry Sosnov |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202107_00099v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2021-07-31 09:51 |
| Submitted by: | Sosnov, Dmitry |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 28th Annual Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS) and Related Subjects (DIS2021) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
Abstract
We present the forward rapidity gap spectra from proton-lead collisions for both I\!P-Pb and I\!P-p topologies measured at the CMS at a center-of-mass energy of 8.16 TeV. For the I\!P-Pb topology, the cross-section predicted by EPOS-LHC is a factor of two lower than the data while has reasonable description of the spectrum shape. For the I\!P-p topology, the EPOS-LHC, QGSJET~II and HIJING predictions are significantly lower than the data, what can be explained by a contribution of ultra-peripheral photoproduction events. The obtained data may be of significant input for understanding the high energy limit of QCD and modeling cosmic ray air showers.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2022-2-17 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202107_00099v1, delivered 2022-02-17, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.4448
Report
The proceeding presents the forward rapidity gap spectra from proton-lead collisions for both pomeron-lead and pomeron-proton topologies. This measurement is important since it is the first one made with the CMS detector and is performed over 10.4 units of pseudorapidity at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 8.16 TeV. The obtained results can be of significant help in understanding the high energy limit of QCD and modeling cosmic ray air showers.
The proceeding is well written and certainly worth publishing.
I only have two minor comments.
The placement of Figure 3 on the page needs to be fixed; currently, it is placed after the first two references [on page 4].
There are many broken links to arXiv in the "References" section.