Paper detail

Toward Description of $pp$ and $p{\rm C}$ Interactions at High Energies: Problems of Fritiof-based Models

How do the models (Fritiof 1.6, Fritiof 7.0, UrQMD 3.3 and Hijing 1.383) describe experimental data of NA61/SHINE and NA49 Collaborations on $pp$ and $p{\rm C}$ interactions at high energies? An answer on this question is given in the paper. It is shown that the UrQMD model does not reproduce the energy dependence of $π^-$ meson production in $pp$-interactions; the Fritiof 1.6 and the Fritiof 7.0 models underestimate the meson production on $\sim$ 10 %; the Hijing model overestimates the data on $\sim$ 10 %. A change of a LUND fragmentation function parameter in the Fritiof models 1.6/7.0 allows to describe the data. A decreasing of probabilities of binary processes in the UrQMD model like $p+p\rightarrow N+N'$ and so on, allows one to describe the data, thus a problem of a correct accounting of the processes arises. An increasing of a probability of the single diffraction dissociation in the Hijing model from 35 % to 50 % allows to describe the data, though a spectrum of masses produced in the diffraction is not satisfactory. A description of the diffraction is a problem in all the models.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.