Underlying event in hard interactions at the Fermilab Tevatron<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="true">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math>collider
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For comparison of inclusive jet cross sections measured at hadron-hadron colliders to next-to-leading order (NLO) parton-level calculations, the energy deposited in the jet cone by spectator parton interactions must first be subtracted. The assumption made at the Tevatron is that the spectator parton interaction energy is similar to the ambient level measured in minimum bias events. In this paper, we test this assumption by measuring the ambient charged track momentum in events containing large transverse energy jets at $\sqrt{s}=1800\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$ and $\sqrt{s}=630\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$ and comparing this ambient momentum with that observed both in minimum bias events and with that predicted by two Monte Carlo models. Two cones in $\ensuremath{\eta}\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\phi}$ space are defined, at the same pseudorapidity, $\ensuremath{\eta}$, as the jet with the highest transverse energy (${E}_{T}^{(1)}$), and at $\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}{90}^{o}$ in the azimuthal direction, $\ensuremath{\phi}$. The total charged track momentum inside each of the two cones is measured. The minimum momentum in the two cones is almost independent of ${E}_{T}^{(1)}$ and is similar to the momentum observed in minimum bias events, whereas the maximum momentum increases roughly linearly with the jet ${E}_{T}^{(1)}$ over most of the measured range. This study was carried out using data from the CDF detector taken during Run 1 (1994-1995). The study will help improve the precision of comparisons of jet cross section data and NLO perturbative QCD predictions. The distribution of the sum of the track momenta in the two cones is also examined for five different ${E}_{T}^{(1)}$ bins. The HERWIG and PYTHIA Monte Carlo generators are reasonably successful in describing the data, but neither can describe completely all of the event properties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".