ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 753 (2016) 319–329 321
kinematics of diffractive processes. For proton–proton collisions
at
√
s = 13 TeV there is not yet any experimental information
available about diffractive processes, therefore trigger and event-
selection
efficiency corrections are solely based on previous ex-
perimental
data at lower collision energies and simulations with
Monte Carlo event generators. The corresponding systematic un-
certainty
has been evaluated by varying the fractions of single-
diffractive
(SD) and double-diffractive (DD) events produced by
PYTHIA 6 (Perugia-2011) by ±50% of their nominal values at
√
s =
13 TeV. The resulting contribution to the systematic uncertainties
for INEL and INEL > 0events is estimated to be about 2% and 1.2%,
respectively. To estimate systematic uncertainties associated to the
model dependence of the normalisation correction we employed
PYTHIA 8 [23] (Monash-2013 [24]), which shows large differences
both in the multiplicity and transverse-momentum distributions of
charged particles with respect to PYTHIA 6, especially in diffractive
events [25]. Adifference of about 0.4% and 2% is observed for INEL
and INEL > 0events, respectively. Finally, an uncertainty of 2% has
been estimated by varying the offline event-selection criteria ap-
plied
to the trigger detectors which only affects the normalisation
of the INEL sample.
The systematic uncertainties for the transverse-momentum dis-
tribution
analysis are evaluated in a similar way as in previous
analyses of pp [9,10], p–Pb [11,12], and Pb–Pb [14] data. The dom-
inant
sources of uncertainty are the track selections, the efficiency
corrections and, for low p
T
, the contamination from weak decays
of strange hadrons. The systematic uncertainties for the pseudo-
rapidity
distribution analysis are discussed in the following. The
uncertainty in detector acceptance and efficiency is estimated to
be about 1.5%, determined from the change of the multiplicity at
a given η by varying the range of the z position of the vertex
and performing the measurement in different runs. The material
budget in the ALICE central barrel
|
η
|
<
1is known with a preci-
sion
of about 5% [16]. The corresponding systematic uncertainty,
obtained by varying the material budget in the simulation, is es-
timated
to be about 0.1% and is negligibly small compared to the
other sources. The sensitivity to tracklet selection criteria was es-
timated
varying the selection requirements and is negligible. The
uncertainty due to the particle composition is estimated to be
about 0.2% and was determined by changing the relative fractions
of charged kaons and protons with respect to charged pions pro-
duced
by the Monte Carlo generator by ±30%. The uncertainty
resulting from the subtraction of the contamination from weak de-
cays
of strange hadrons is estimated to amount to about 0.5% by
varying the strangeness correction by ±30%. The uncertainty due
to the correction down to zero p
T
is estimated to be about 1% by
varying the amount of particles below the 50 MeV/c low-p
T
cutoff
by
+100
−50
%.
5. Results
Fig. 1 shows the average charged-particle density distribution
dN
ch
/dη measured in INEL and INEL > 0events in the pseudora-
pidity
range
|
η
|
<
1.8. The data points have been symmetrised av-
eraging
the results obtained in ±η, which were consistent within
statistical uncertainties. The corresponding pseudorapidity densi-
ties
in
|
η
|
<
0.5are 5.31 ± 0.18 and 6.46 ± 0.19, respectively. The
pseudorapidity density for the INEL > 0events is also measured
in
|
η
|
<
1for direct comparison with INEL > 0results reported
by ALICE at lower energies [5] and is 6.61 ± 0.20. Also shown in
Fig. 1 are the results recently published by the CMS Collaboration
for inelastic collisions [15], which agree, within the uncertainties,
with the measurement presented here. We compared our mea-
surement
to Monte Carlo calculations performed with PYTHIA 6
[18] (Perugia-2011 [19]), PYTHIA 8 [26] (Monash-2013 [24]) and
Fig. 1 . Average pseudorapidity density of charged particles as a function of η pro-
duced
in pp collisions at
√
s = 13 TeV. The ALICE results are shown in the normali-
sation
classes INEL and INEL > 0and compared to Monte Carlo calculations [18,19,
24,26–28] and
to the results from the CMS Collaboration [15]. The uncertainties are
the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic contributions.
Fig. 2. Charged-particle pseudorapidity density measured in the central pseudora-
pidity
region
|
η
|
<
0.5for INEL and INEL > 0events[4–6,15,29–33]. The uncertain-
ties
are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic contributions. The lines are
power-law fits of the energy dependence of the data and the grey bands represent
the standard deviation of the fits.
EPOS LHC
1
[27,28] in both the INEL and INEL > 0event classes.
PYTHIA 6 calculations are in better agreement with the data than
PYTHIA 8 in both classes, with PYTHIA 8 being higher than the
data by about 12% (7%) in INEL events and about 7% (3%) in
INEL > 0events at η ∼ 0(η ∼ 1.5). EPOS LHC calculations are
about 7% (4%) and about 7% (5%) higher than the data in INEL and
INEL > 0events, respectively, at η ∼ 0(η ∼ 1.5). In Fig. 2 we show
1
Calculations performed with CRMC package version 1.5.3.