Okay, can you see slides?
Yes.
Okay, good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to present on behalf of the CMS eta
collaborations about it. measurements that we have performed soft QC and diffractive
processes. As an outline, I'm just here would like to emphasize that I'm focused
on the forward directors of the CMS and the measurements related with the soft QC
and frankly processes that was recently published, will be presented and then I
will summarize Michael. Okay, as the introduction already given by the previous
speakers, I would like to skip this. This slide number three, and come to the board
the directors at CMS. What we can see in here is, this is a schematic we will the
CMS detector, and Suzanne going to present results related with the cost store and
the totem very forward detectors. The cost stories was placed in this area and the
totem is placed in this area. The cost store was a tungsten quartz Chernenko
sampling color meter and it was separated electromagnetic and hydraulic sections for
the Tata measurements it is measuring the leading protons at different ranges from
the interaction point. And the important thing is here, it has the small tracking
detectors measured the displacement of protons scattered at small angles with
respect to the beam. slide number five, the double polygon scattering Let me
remind you the double part on scattering events that have too hard scatters within
say protons. The DPS processes are becoming increasingly important when you
go to the higher center of mass energies and it can be Good to have any information
about the transfers profiles to proton PDS, if you would like to write the cross
section of the DPS as you can see in the box of the formula, this is a very
simplified formula of the TPS. And here is the m is the number of the distinguishable
part from Excel processes, and is equal to unity when the the SPSS processes like a
and b are equal to otherwise and is equal to for the effective transfers, it's very
effective production, which is regarded as an important thing to transfers profile of
art or it can be assumed to be processed and energy dependent, independent. Sorry,
slide number six. One of the most promising
processes to study DPS is the W was on production. This is a kind of question
benchmark versus LFC especially the same sign ww VPS. To leptons is very, very
promising theoretically we have made a publication recently made a publication in
in CMS collaboration and it has a very clean final state having two leptons with
some missing et. So we can get information about the proton PVS structures and we can
improve the MonteCarlo models by using this kind of measurements. The figures
that are shown in here on the left hand side in the trace the production of the
same site, WW, why DPS process and on the right hand side, why are the SPS at
leading order in perturbative qc? And so the event selection criteria are already
given at the bottom of the slide and I don't want to go into the details but I
just would like to emphasize in order to reduce the contributions coming From the
QC the Multijet production we have applied the PTM is about 15 G and some extra Vito
applied on additional emu and Tao hydronic tell candidates This is the DPS w w x 13
team results. So, since, we would like to discriminate the signal from the dominant
background processes we have used multivariate classifiers especially the
backgrounds coming from and called as front electrons and neutrons coming from w
Zed or tower leptons and not from ones are originated from heavy quarks or forks and
Boolean jets in which are incorrectly constructed as leptons. So, we have used
the maximum likely fit to do finance misfire as you can see on the top of the
slide The final BGP classifier output for the EMU, a final states argument and on
the bottom, it's given for the new final states. One can use this to separate the
charge for maximum sensitivity. And what we can observe in here is, there's a
sensitivity, actually more sensitivity to plus plus configuration rather than the
minus minus one. So the results obtained from this maximum likely fit to the final
classifier distribution are given in this table. As you can see, this is the cross
section update with PTR factorized by using a factorized approach, and that's
the data from the this is the value that we have measured, and that's the
significance having with 3.9 standard deviations on the bottom of the slide, but
met the observation cross section menus for inclusive VPS WWE production and Opie
from plus and minus electron charge configurations along with their
combination are shown for the effective cross section which are extracted from
this, from this measurement, as you can see at the bottom of the right figure is
compared with the previous measurements and experiments at different center of
mass energies. I would like to become one another important for the measurement that
we have performed and published last year. So, I just would like to emphasize this
was the first correlation study on how to not activity at very forward and central
rapid cities. At tourism TV. This measurement was performed by using the
customer directive which I was mentioning in my previous slides. I don't want to go
into the details of this strategy, but I just like to To say that the average total
energy reconstructed in the customer color meter, and normalized to the first thing
is is shown as a function of the number of the tracks where the durability absolute
value is less than two. And here you can see the data is compared with different
MonteCarlo models, as well as the high energy cosmic ray air showers. And we can
easily see that there is an increase with the number of the tracks and the
underlying parameter tunes like peaks eight is CP five, which was determined at
Central rapids and this can be safely extrapolated to the forward regions. When
we look at these two plots, we can say that CBO two one gives the best
description of all.
We have also checked the error electromagnetic and hydronic energy ratios
and since it is sensitive to the details of that organization and discrepancies
between models and data may reflect an inadequate description of the production
mechanism. So, the ratios as you can see is approximately constant over the whole
multiplicity region and there is no dramatic change of the particle production
mechanism is observed especially at the at this very for durability region. And we
can say that all model predictions are lower than the data but the Q GS jet two
and Siebel two one and her Excel one provides the best description of the data.
I would like to come to the practice measurements that we have recently perform
and it is a
CMS physics artists summary, it's about the heart color seeing that exchange in
digesting amounts at certain TV. So, let me first introduce you to this kind of
events. Events with two high PT jets separated with a large trip together and
there shouldn't be any particle activity in between those jets as you can see,
here, this is the jet capture event and on the right hand side on top, you can see
the jet capture events and events in the in the fire ater plane. So, this kind of
such studies actually and the vehicle black diamonds are largest topless in such
kind of measurements and one can easily study the BFF O'Mara exchange, which is
the color singlet exchange where the two blown tea channel exchange so the central
gap signature can be destroyed by so far on internet And there's a one important
pyrometer factor Actually, it's called rapidly to gaps or why will probability
and it's a kind of number two, but it's a multiplicative factor. And it can have
when you bought the high energy energies, especially the LSC and RDC, this parameter
is having this type of starting from 0.2 up to 10 to the minus two values. So, in
this analysis, we have performed two studies, one is in the jacket jack
inclusive data production using the CMS. In the second one, we have usually the
protons in the proton which were which were measured at the totem Roman pots. So,
since we have to invent samples we have applied even selections for selecting the
digestive and especially, we would like to have the larger repeted separation. That's
why we have applied the second time Some of the first leading chat and subnetting
chat of the aka should be less than zero. For the levy proton selection, we have
required at least one proton should be detected one of these sectors in total
Roman pots and and the differential cross sections the differential cross sections
the fractional momentum both are required if and psi and T are applied to be within
this region.
For the there is a one factor which is a called rapid gap
CSE FC FC which is the actually the ratio of the number of jet capture events to the
number of inclusive dieted events what you can see on the right hand slide, there is
a comparison the FSC is vs to the sub leading jets PT is given out The CMS data
certainty is given with the blue blue markers and compared with the one premise
previous measurement that we have perform at 70 and compared with the other
experiments performed Up to now, so the generally the nice, me Okay, thank you
almost a fraction of jet get job is also shown for the two jets data data
differences. So there's a trend of increasing that 70s also confirmed
confirmed at 13 TV. This measurement extends the range previously explored
towards large values of data. And also I would like to show you the CMS data
results for this jet capture events with the leading proton so CMS dot m results
when you compare the CMS is also Just that the relative abundance of digest events
with a central gap is larger in events with a leading proton. So this is a kind
of constraints
on the theoretical treatment of rapids the gap survival probability.
We have recently just signed on another in a publication single practice project
production at a TV. This is also using the totem data both together with CMS you can
see here, the background coming from the inclusive digests with a fake or a pileup
in the single arm of the wrong parts. So, we have applied some cuts the psi and
taught them and the costs icms and you can see the CMS minus sign to them with
respect to the events. So, this is the results that we have obtained the
differential cross sections are shown here as a function of the T on the left hand
side and on the right hand side as a functional difference. See, Paul MC
actually corrected with two for two ends of suppression of defective cross section.
This is the gap survival probability PTA tveit dynamic gap model accounts for the
MPI and describes the data reasonably well without applying any further corrections.
And this is the comparison that we have performed for the ratio the single
diffractive and the non refractive target for all sections from different models as
you can see on the left hand side and on the right hand side the CMS measurement is
a ratio as a function of momentum sorry part of momentum fraction of x is shown
here. So, similarly practice to elusive cross section ratio decreases with the
center of mass energies as observed in telecom measurements.
So, this brings me to number summary, I have you you an overview of some
representative soft QC here refractive measurements, and Elysee has provided
access to large face to face as well as a new energy scape for understanding of
various aspects of the QC. As a CMS, we have a rich physics program to test for
acoustic models and to improve our picture of hydronic collisions as well as its
universality. So I have also shown you the very forward rapid region energy
measurements, which indicates some interesting potential to further improve
the underlying investment model predictions as well as tuning the Monte
Carlo samples. So there are still more measurements and at fortune ongoing and we
are patient of the NSE around two. And please stay tuned and I would like to
thank you for your attention.
Thank you, Denise.
time for questions.
Hello, I would have a question on the WWE W. DPS measurement. On the last slide
you've shown in your form for this study. I don't know what these
go there first.
This one sorry.
This one, you mean, this is the Yes, exactly.
So do I understand correctly that in the bottom left plot, the bottom result that
you showed there includes both same same sign and the opposite sign? Yes, yes.
Right. But then isn't there on a model dependent extrapolation That is being
involved here because the actual measurement, I think you perform it for
same sign.
Yes, that's right. The the actual measurement was performed for the same
sign. But here, we have also checked the leptons
charge configurations in here. And as you can see, that's the that's the our
measurements are on the bottom. This is the our final results for the DPS cross
section.
And the others are
obtained by using the PCA and factorization approach.
Right, but my point was just that I mean, I think when you extrapolate from, from
same sign from the measurement to the bottom result there, which include the
opposite sign, I think you have model dependence in this extrapolation.
Yes, that's right. Okay.
Any more questions?