SciPost Submission Page
The role of the underlying event in the charm-baryon enhancement observed in pp collisions at LHC energies
by Zoltan Varga, Anett Misak, Robert Vertesi
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Zoltan Varga |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202210_00033v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-10-03 22:13 |
| Submitted by: | Varga, Zoltan |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 51st International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics (ISMD2022) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Phenomenological |
Abstract
We study the enhanced production of $\Lambda_c$ charmed baryons relative to that of charmed $D^0$ mesons in proton-proton collisions at LHC energies. We simulated collision events with the enhanced color-reconnection model in PYTHIA 8 MC generator and propose measurements based on the comparative use of different event-activity classifiers to identify the source of the charmed-baryon enhancement. We demonstrate that in this enhanced color-reconnection scenario the excess production is primarily linked to the underlying event and not to the production of high-momentum jets.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2022-11-28 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202210_00033v1, delivered 2022-11-28, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.6221
Strengths
1. A very accessible introduction, making the topic clear to all readers
2. A reasonably clear presentation of the link between activity classes and
Weaknesses
1. The role or distinction between Pythia models is not made clear: is this phenomenon also seen with other Pythia CR models? Is this model realistic compared to data?
2. The connection between the ratio plots with different activity classes and the conclusions drawn seem unclear: enhancements seem to happen in different pT ranges for both the different activity classifiers, with the indirect-production dominance falling into one of those ranges. More explanation and discussion of these interesting features would be valuable.
Report
The presentation is generally good, but more questions are introduced than answered in the results section. Expanding upon this to better explain the conclusions drawn from the plots would make it a much stronger contribution. (The page limit is relaxed for corrections after review.)
Requested changes
1. The definition of the trigger particle is not quite clear: what if more than one particle has pT > 5 GeV?
2. constrains -> constraints
3. p2: The meaning of CR Mode 2 is not given: this is completely obscure to any non-expert in Pythia CR modes.
4. Trapped text below Fig 1; would be clearer with Fig 1 positioned at the [b]ottom rather than [h]ere.
5. p3: the "jet region activity classes" have not been mentioned... previously this variable was the near-side cone activity" classifier. Either use the same name in both places, or introduce the "jet" nomenclature as a synonym at the definition point.
6. p3: the Lambda_c enhancement (i.e. ratio increase with event class) does actually appear for both the transverse and near-side classifier binnings, it just happens at low pT for the transverse classes, and at higher pT for the (jet-like) near-side. The connection to the bias of near-side particles to themselves be higher-pT seems clear, but it is maybe also important that the dividing line between these pT regimes appears to be the region dominated by Sigma_c production in min bias? These aspects should be discussed to some extent, as otherwise the images seem to contradict the text, or at least suggest possible alternative or more subtle explanations.
Author: Zoltan Varga on 2022-12-02 [id 3100]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2022-11-28)We thank the Referee for the positive overall evaluation of our manuscript, and for the valuable suggestions. We addressed all the comments and questions by the Referee. We're resubmitting the revised manuscript with the requested changes implemented.
We agree that the results in our contribution raise a few questions. We find remark 6 especially useful and we extended the discussion on that.
We are also carrying out further studies that do not fit into these proceedings. Some of the questions will eventually be answered by high-quality data from the LHC Run3 period.