SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

EPOS4: What are the new concepts?

by Klaus Werner

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Klaus Werner
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_202410_00042v1  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2024-10-17 19:36
Submitted by: Werner, Klaus
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: 22nd International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECRI 2024)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
Specialties:
  • High-Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Approach: Theoretical

Abstract

I explain the new concepts underpinning EPOS4, a novel theoretical framework designed to model hadronic interactions at ultrarelativistic energies. This approach eventually reconciles the parallel multiple scattering scenario (needed in connection with collective effects) and factorization (being the conventional method for high-energy scattering).

Current status:
Awaiting resubmission

Reports on this Submission

Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2024-11-5 (Invited Report)

Strengths

The manuscript is devoted to a popular description of basic physics approaches of the EPOS4 Monte Carlo generator and of the corresponding technical implementation. The author discusses in a pedagogical way the main theoretical concepts of the model, providing also selected numerical results for illustration.

Weaknesses

1) In the Introduction, the author rightfully argues that the initial stage of high energy collisions proceeds on much smaller time-distance scales than final state interactions, which allows one to treat the two stages separately. However, in lines 17-22, he states that while the initial stage takes a long time, the corresponding interaction region is pointlike. This may confuse a potential reader. Generally, the size of the interaction region is defined by the interaction time. What the author probably means is that while the time scale of the initial stage is long enough (and the size of the respective region is large enough) to allow for multiple scattering processes to proceed in parallel, this time is very short, compared to the characteristic time scales of final state interactions. Hence, the interaction region can be considered pointlike, compared to the one relevant for final state interactions.

2) Ref. [7] corresponds to the perturbative treatment ('GL' of 'DGLAP') rather than to the Gribov-Regge approach.

Report

The manuscript is devoted to a popular description of basic physics approaches of the EPOS4 Monte Carlo generator and of the corresponding technical implementation. The author discusses in a pedagogical way the main theoretical concepts of the model, providing also selected numerical results for illustration.

I have only two small technical remarks to the manuscript.

1) In the Introduction, the author rightfully argues that the initial stage of high energy collisions proceeds on much smaller time-distance scales than final state interactions, which allows one to treat the two stages separately. However, in lines 17-22, he states that while the initial stage takes a long time, the corresponding interaction region is pointlike. This may confuse a potential reader. Generally, the size of the interaction region is defined by the interaction time. What the author probably means is that while the time scale of the initial stage is long enough (and the size of the respective region is large enough) to allow for multiple scattering processes to proceed in parallel, this time is very short, compared to the characteristic time scales of final state interactions. Hence, the interaction region can be considered pointlike, compared to the one relevant for final state interactions.

2) Ref. [7] corresponds to the perturbative treatment ('GL' of 'DGLAP') rather than to the Gribov-Regge approach.

Requested changes

The author may consider the remarks listed above.

Recommendation

Publish (meets expectations and criteria for this Journal)

  • validity: high
  • significance: high
  • originality: high
  • clarity: high
  • formatting: good
  • grammar: good

Login to report or comment