Measurement of diffractive dissociation cross sections in pp collisions atffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV V. Khachatryan et al. * (CMS Collaboration) (Received 30 March 2015; published 6 July 2015) Measurements of diffractive dissociation cross sections in pp collisions at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV are presented in kinematic regions defined by the masses MX and MY of the two final-state hadronic systems separated by the largest rapidity gap in the event. Differential cross sections are measured as a function of ξX ¼ M2 X=s in the region −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5, for log10MY < 0.5, dominated by single dissociation (SD), and 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1, dominated by double dissociation (DD), where MX and MY are given in GeV. The inclusive pp cross section is also measured as a function of the width of the central pseudorapidity gap Δη for Δη > 3, log10MX > 1.1, and log10MY > 1.1, a region dominated by DD. The cross sections integrated over these regions are found to be, respectively, 2.99� 0.02ðstatÞþ0.32 −0.29 ðsystÞ mb, 1.18� 0.02ðstatÞ � 0.13ðsystÞ mb, and 0.58� 0.01ðstatÞþ0.13 −0.11 ðsystÞ mb, and are used to extract extrapo- lated total SD and DD cross sections. In addition, the inclusive differential cross section, dσ=dΔηF, for events with a pseudorapidity gap adjacent to the edge of the detector, is measured over ΔηF ¼ 8.4 units of pseudorapidity. The results are compared to those of other experiments and to theoretical predictions and found compatible with slowly rising diffractive cross sections as a function of center-of-mass energy. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012003 PACS numbers: 13.85.Ni I. INTRODUCTION A significant fraction (≈ 25%) of the total inelastic proton-proton cross section at high energies can be attrib- uted to diffractive interactions, characterized by the pres- ence of at least one nonexponentially suppressed large rapidity gap (LRG), i.e., a region of pseudorapidity η devoid of particles, where for a particle moving at a polar angle θ with respect to the beam, η ¼ − ln½tanðθ=2Þ�. If this η region is adjacent to the diffractively scattered proton, it is called a forward pseudorapidity gap. In hadronic inter- actions an LRG is presumed to be mediated by a color- singlet exchange carrying the vacuum quantum numbers, commonly referred to as Pomeron exchange. Figure 1 defines the main types of diffractive processes: single dissociation (SD), double dissociation (DD), and central diffraction (CD). Inclusive diffractive cross sections cannot be calculated within perturbative quantum chromodynamics and are commonly described by models based on Regge theory (see e.g. [1] and references therein). The predictions of these models generally differ when extrapolated from the Tevatron center-of-mass energies of ffiffiffi s p ≤ 1.96 TeV to LHC energies. Therefore, measurements of diffractive cross sections at 7 TeV provide a valuable input for understanding diffraction and improving its theoretical description. They are also crucial for the proper modeling of the full final state of hadronic interactions in event generators, and can help to improve the simulation of the underlying event, as well as of the total inelastic cross section. The DD cross section has been recently measured atffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV by the TOTEM Collaboration [2], for events in which both dissociated-proton masses are below ∼12 GeV. Other measurements of diffractive cross sections at the LHC, with higher dissociation masses, have either a limited precision [3] or no separation between SD and DD events [4]. In this paper, we present the first CMS measurement of inclusive diffractive cross sections atffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV. This measurement is based on the presence of a forward LRG, with SD- and DD-dominated event samples separated by using the CASTOR calorimeter [5], covering the very forward region, −6.6 < η < −5.2. A data sample with a central LRG, in which DD dominates, is also used. In addition, the inclusive differential cross section, dσ=dΔηF, for events with a pseudorapidity gap adjacent to the edge of the detector, is measured over ΔηF ¼ 8.4 units of pseudorapidity, and compared to a similar ATLAS measurement [4]. The results presented here are based on the first CMS data collected at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV during the 2010 LHC commissioning period, when the probability of overlapping pp interactions in the same bunch crossing (pileup), which may spoil the detection of the gap, was low. The paper is organized into 11 sections and two appendices. The CMS detector is described in Sec. II. Section III presents the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations used *Full author list given at the end of the article. Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distri- bution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 1550-7998=2015=92(1)=012003(32) 012003-1 © 2015 CERN, for the CMS Collaboration http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012003 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in the analysis. The event selection and the diffractive event topologies used to measure the cross sections are discussed in Secs. IV and V, respectively. Sections VI, VII, and VIII present the measurement of the forward-gap and central- gap differential cross sections, and the integrated cross sections, respectively. All cross sections are extracted within the detector acceptance and with minimal model- dependent systematic uncertainties. The extrapolation of the measured cross sections to the low-mass regions is discussed in Sec. IX. Section X presents the measurement of the pseudorapidity gap cross section and its comparison to the ATLAS result [4]. The systematic uncertainties for all the measurements are discussed in Sec. XI. A summary is given in Sec. XII. Appendixes A and B present additional comparisons between the diffractive MC models used. II. THE CMS DETECTOR A detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [6]. The central feature of the apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal diameter, providing a 3.8 T axial field. Within the field volume are located a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass/scintillator hadron calorimeter. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke of the magnet. The calorimeter cells are grouped in projective towers, of granularity Δη × Δϕ ¼ 0.087 × 0.087 at central rapidities and 0.175 × 0.175 at forward rapidities. In addition to the barrel and end-cap detectors, CMS has extensive forward calorimetry. The forward component of the hadron calorimeter, HF (2.9 < jηj < 5.2), consists of steel absorbers with embedded radiation-hard quartz fibers, providing fast collection of Cherenkov light. The very forward angles are covered at one end of CMS (−6.6 < η < −5.2) by the CASTOR calorimeter [5], made of quartz plates embedded in tungsten absorbers, segmented in 16 ϕ sectors and 14 z modules. Two elements of the CMS monitoring system, the beam scintillator counters (BSC) and the beam pickup timing experiment (BPTX) devices, are used to trigger the CMS readout. The two BSC are located at a distance of�10.86m from the nominal interaction point (IP) and are sensitive in the jηj range 3.23 to 4.65. Each BSC consists of 16 scintillator tiles. The BSC elements have a time resolution of 3 ns and an average minimum ionizing particle detection efficiency of 96.3%. The two BPTX devices, located around the beam pipe at a distance of 175 m from the IP on either side, are designed to provide precise informa- tion on the bunch structure and timing of the incoming beams, with better than 0.2 ns time resolution. III. MONTE CARLO SIMULATION Monte Carlo simulations are used to correct the mea- sured distributions for the geometrical acceptance and reconstruction efficiency of the CMS detector, as well as for migrations from true to reconstructed values in the distributions of kinematic variables. We use PYTHIA 8.165 [7,8] to generate samples of inelastic events. We compare the detector-level data distributions to the PYTHIA 8 4C [8] and PYTHIA 8 MBR (minimum bias Rockefeller) [9] simulations and extract integrated cross sections using PYTHIA 8 MBR. Diffractive events in the PYTHIA 8 4C simulation are generated according to the Schuler-Sjöstrand model implemented in PYTHIA 6 [7]. The 4C tune [8] includes a downward scaling of the Schuler-Sjöstrand SD and DD cross sections at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV by 10% and 12%, respectively. FIG. 1. Schematic diagrams of (a) nondiffractive, pp → X, and diffractive processes with (b) single dissociation, pp → Xp or pp → pY, (c) double dissociation, pp → XY, and (d) central diffraction, pp → pXp; XðYÞ represents a dissociated proton or a centrally produced hadronic system. V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-2 The PYTHIA 8 MBR generator predicts the energy dependence of the total, elastic, and inelastic pp cross sections, and fully simulates the main diffractive compo- nents of the inelastic cross section: SD, DD and CD. The diffractive-event generation in PYTHIA 8 MBR is based on a phenomenological renormalized-Regge-theory model [10,11], which is unitarized by interpreting the Pomeron flux as the probability for forming a diffractive rapidity gap. The model was originally developed for the CDF experi- ment at the Tevatron and has been successfully tested with the CDF results on diffraction. The PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation assumes a linear parametrization of the Pomeron trajectory, αðtÞ ¼ 1þ εþ α0t, where t is the square of the four-momentum transfer between the two incident protons. We use α0 ¼ 0.25 GeV−2, and ε ¼ 0.08 [12,13] or ε ¼ 0.104 [14,15], to account for the possible energy dependence of ε in the range of diffractive masses acces- sible in this analysis. We find that the simulation with ε ¼ 0.08 gives a good description of the data. Scaling the DD cross section downwards by 15%, which preserves the agreement with the CDF data, further improves the description of the DD-dominated data at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV. These modifications are incorporated into the simulation used here. The measured cross sections are also compared to the predictions of PYTHIA 6 Z2* [16] and to MC generators based on Regge-Gribov phenomenology: PHOJET (version 1.12-35) [17,18], QGSJET-II (versions 03 and 04) [19,20], and EPOS LHC [21]; the latter two are commonly used in cosmic-ray physics [22]. At the stable-particle level (where stable particles are those with lifetime τ such that cτ > 10 mm), the kin- ematic regions covered by the present measurements are defined by the masses MX and MY of the two final-state hadronic systems separated by the largest rapidity gap in the event. For a final-state particle of energy E and longitudinal momentum pz, rapidity is defined as y ¼ ð1=2Þ ln½ðEþ pzÞ=ðE − pzÞ�. At stable-particle level the gap is defined as the largest rapidity separation between stable particles, without any acceptance restric- tion. The final state is then separated into systems X and Y, which populate the regions on the positive and negative side of the rapidity gap, respectively. The corresponding masses MX and MY are calculated from the full set of four-vectors in the respective group of stable particles. In the following sections, MX and MY are given in units of GeV. (GeV)PFE 0 10 20 30 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 | < 1.4 PF η| ±h (7 TeV) -1bμ16.2 (GeV)PFE 0 20 40 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 | < 2.6 PF η1.4 < | (7 TeV) -1bμ16.2 (GeV)PFE 0 20 40 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 | < 3.2 PF η2.6 < | (7 TeV) -1bμ16.2 | > 3.2 PF η| (GeV)PFE 0 10 20 30 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 γ (GeV)PFE 0 20 40 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 (GeV)PFE 0 20 40 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 (GeV)PFE 0 10 20 30 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 0h (GeV)PFE 0 20 40 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 (GeV)PFE 0 20 40 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 Data PYTHIA8-MBR: SD1 SD2 DD CD ND Pileup (GeV)PFE 0 50 100 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 EMCHF (7 TeV) -1bμ16.2 (GeV)PFE 0 50 100 E ve nt s / 0 .2 G eV 1 210 410 610 810 HADHF FIG. 2 (color online). Detector-level distributions of the energy of PF objects in four pseudorapidity intervals: jηPFj < 1.4, 1.4 < jηPFj < 2.6, 2.6 < jηPFj < 3.2, and jηPFj > 3.2, corresponding to the barrel, end-cap, end-cap-forward transition, and forward detector regions (columns), for five particle candidate types: charged hadrons (tracks), photons, neutral hadrons, and two types that yield electromagnetic or hadronic energy deposits in HF (rows). Electron and muon candidates constitute less than 0.1% of the PF objects reconstructed in the jηPFj < 2.6 region, and are not shown. The data are compared to the predictions of the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample. The contribution of each of the generated processes is shown separately. MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-3 We use the pseudorapidity variable to select diffractive events at the detector level. At the stable-particle level, the true rapidity is used. For the pseudorapidity gap cross section, pseudorapidity (not true rapidity) is used at the hadron level to avoid unnecessary large bin migrations between the distributions measured at the detector and stable-particle levels. As the central CMS detector is insensitive to low-mass diffraction, we use the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, which describes the data well, to extrapo- late the measured cross section into the low-mass region. The detailed MC simulation of the CMS detector response is based on GEANT4 [23]. Simulated PYTHIA 8 4C and PYTHIA 8 MBR events are processed and recon- structed in the same manner as collision data. IV. EVENT SELECTION The present analysis is based on event samples collected during the 2010 commissioning period, when the LHC was operating at low pileup. For the results presented in Secs. V–IX, only data with information from the CASTOR calorimeter are used, which correspond to an integrated luminosity of 16.2 μb−1, and have an average number of inelastic pp collisions per bunch crossing of μ ¼ 0.14. The results based on pseudorapidity-gap events presented in Section X are extracted from a different set of data taking runs with negligible pileup (μ ¼ 0.006) that correspond to an integrated luminosity of 20.3 μb−1. Events were selected online by requiring a signal in both BPTX detectors, in conjunction with a signal in any of the BSC scintillators. These conditions correspond to requiring the presence of two crossing bunches along with activity in the main CMS detector (minimum bias trigger). Offline selections [24] are applied to remove beam- scraping, beam-halo, and noise events. In addition, a minimal activity in the main CMS detectors is imposed offline by requiring at least two particle-flow (PF) objects reconstructed within the geometrical acceptance of the BSC detectors (3.23 < jηj < 4.65, with an energy of at least 4 GeV for each PF object). Particle-flow objects [25,26] are particle candidates obtained by optimally combining the information from the tracking system and the calorimeters. In the forward regions (jηj > 2.5), where there is no tracking, PF objects reduce to calorimeter towers. Figure 2 shows the distributions of the energy of the PF objects reconstructed in different detector regions for different particle candidates, compared to the prediction of the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, which describes the data well. The requirement on the minimum energy of PF objects was found by studying data collected in dedicated runs with no beam; it depends on the detector region and the particle candidates and varies from zero for tracks to 4 GeV for the HF towers. To assure a reliable Monte Carlo description of the data, the two innermost (most forward) rings of HF are not used in the analysis, thus limiting the central CMS detector coverage to jηj ≲ 4.7. The two outermost (most central) HF rings are also not used for the same reason. No vertex requirement is imposed. This procedure gives high acceptance for diffractive events with the hadronic system outside the tracking acceptance (i.e., with low to moderate diffractive masses, 12≲ MX ≲ 100 GeV). According to the PYTHIA 8 MBR simu- lation, the selection described above accepts about 90% of the events corresponding to the total inelastic cross section in the region of log10MX > 1.1 or log10MY > 1.1. V. DIFFRACTIVE EVENT TOPOLOGIES The events satisfying the selection described in Sec. IV constitute a minimum bias sample dominated by inclusive inelastic events in the region covered by the central CMS detector (jηj≲ 4.7). They are mostly composed of non- diffractive (ND) events for which final-state particle pro- duction occurs in the entire η space available, as shown schematically in Fig. 3(a). In contrast, diffractive events are expected to have an LRG in the final state. Experimentally, the following diffractive topologies are defined, depending on the position of the reconstructed LRG in the central detector: (i) FG1: a forward pseudorapidity gap at the edge of the detector on the positive η side [Figs. 3(b) and 3(c)]; FIG. 3 (color online). Event topologies in final-state particle η space. Detector level: nondiffractive events (ND), diffractive events with a forward pseudorapidity gap on the positive (FG1) or negative (FG2) η side of the detector, or with a central pseudorapidity gap (CG). Generator level: (a) ND, pp → X, (b) SD1, pp → Xp, (d) SD2, pp → pY, and (c, e, f) DD, pp → XY, events. The empty box represents the central CMS detector (jηj ≲ 4.7), filled full boxes indicate final-state hadronic systems or a proton—the vertical thin bar at the right/left end of sketch (b)/ (d). The dotted empty boxes in (d) and (e) represent the CASTOR calorimeter (−6.6 < η < −5.2). V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-4 (ii) FG2: a forward pseudorapidity gap at the edge of the detector on the negative η side [Figs. 3(d) and 3(e)]; (iii) CG: a central pseudorapidity gap in the detector around η ¼ 0 [Fig. 3(f)]. The experimental topology with a forward pseudor- apidity gap on each edge of the detector [CD topology, Fig. 1(d)] is neglected in this analysis because of the limited number of such events. For the FG1 and FG2 topologies the pseudorapidity gap is related to the variables ηmax and ηmin (Fig. 3), defined as the highest (lowest) η of the PF object reconstructed in the central detector. Experimentally, the pseudorapidity gap in CG events may be expressed as Δη0 ¼ η0max − η0min, where η0max (η0min) is the closest-to-zero η value of the PF objects reconstructed on the positive (negative) η side of the central detector (Fig. 3). Figure 4 shows the distributions of ηmax, ηmin, and Δη0 ¼ η0max − η0min for the minimum bias sample defined in Sec. IV, compared to MC predictions. For the Δη0 selection, the additional requirement that activity be present on both η sides of the central detector is imposed. The data are dominated by the contribution from ND events, for which rapidity gaps are exponentially suppressed [27]. Diffractive events appear as a flattening of the exponential distributions, and dominate the regions of low ηmax, high ηmin, and high Δη0. The absence of events around jηmaxjðjηminjÞ ≈ 3 in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) reflects the fact that the two outermost (most central) rings of HF are not used in the analysis; the depletion of events around jηmaxjðjηminjÞ ≈ 2.4 corresponds to the transition region between the tracker and the forward calorimeters, where higher thresholds are applied for the latter. The regions of 3≲ Δη0 ≲ 6 andΔη0 ≳ 6 in Fig. 4(c) correspond to the DD topology for which one or both of the η0max and η0min edges are in the HF calorimeters. In order to select samples of FG1, FG2, and CG events with a central LRG signature, the requirements ηmax < 1, ηmin > −1, and Δη0 > 3 are imposed, respectively. According to the expectations of the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, the event samples defined experimentally as FG1 or FG2 [Figs. 4(a) and 4(b)] originate from approx- imately equal numbers of SD events with 1.1≲ log10MX ≲ 2.5 and DD events for which one dissociated-proton mass is in this MX range, while the other is small and escapes detection in the central detector, cf. Figs. 3(c) and 3(e). For the FG2 topology, CASTOR (−6.6 < η < −5.2) is used to separate diffractive events into two samples: log10MY ≲ 0.5 (SD enhanced) and 0.5≲ log10MY ≲ 1.1 [DD enhanced, Figs. 3(d) and 3(e)]. The detection of the low-mass dis- sociated system, Y, is performed by using a CASTOR tag, defined as the presence of a signal above the energy threshold (1.48 GeV) in at least one of the 16 ϕ sectors of the first five CASTOR modules. Since no detector is available for tagging the low-mass dissociated system on the positive η side, the FG1 sample is treated as a control sample in this analysis. The range of the dissociation mass MX for the true SD process in the FG2-type sample after all detector selections is shown as a hatched histogram in Fig. 5 for PYTHIA 8 MBR (left) and PYTHIA 8 4C (right) and corresponds to max η -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 E ve nt s / 0 .2 u ni ts 10 210 310 410 510 610 (a) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS min η -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 E ve nt s / 0 .2 u ni ts 10 210 310 410 510 610 (b) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS min 0η- max 0η = 0ηΔ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 E ve nt s / 0 .4 u ni ts 10 210 310 410 510 610 Data PYTHIA8-MBR: SD1 SD2 DD CD ND Pileup (c) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS FIG. 4 (color online). Detector-level distributions for the (a) ηmax, (b) ηmin, and (c) Δη0 ¼ η0max − η0min variables measured in the minimum bias sample (with only statistical errors shown), compared to predictions of the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample. Contributions from each of the MC-generated processes, and simulated events with at least two overlapping interactions of any type (pileup), are shown separately. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries for the ηmax < 1, ηmin > −1, and Δη0 > 3 selections. MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-5 1.1≲ log10MX ≲ 2.5. Similar distributions are obtained for events in the FG1-type sample, in which the dis- sociated system originates from the proton on the other side of the detector. The ranges of dissociation masses, MX and MY , for the true DD events in the minimum bias sample after the trigger selection, in the FG2-type sample with a CASTOR tag, and in the CG-type sample after all detector selections, are shown in the efficiency plots of Figs. 6(a), 6(b), and 6(c), respectively. The FG2-type events, with the pseudorapidity gap reconstructed at the edge of the central detector, populate the region of 1.1≲ log10MX ≲ 2.5 and 0.5≲ log10MY ≲ 1.1 [solid box in Fig. 6(b)]. The selection based on the CG topology requires both diffractive masses to be in the central detector; this leads to different coverage in the (MX, MY) plane. Events populate the region of log10MX ≳ 1.1 and log10MY ≳ 1.1 [Fig. 6(c)], in addition to Δη0 > 3, thus providing a complementary measurement of the DD cross section. VI. FORWARD PSEUDORAPIDITY GAP CROSS SECTIONS FROM THE FG2 EVENT SAMPLE The forward pseudorapidity gap cross sections are measured as a function of the variable ξX, which is related to the mass MX of the dissociated system by: ξX ¼ M2 X s : ð1Þ For the FG2 sample, MX corresponds to the dissociated system that can be detected in the central detector [right- hand side of Figs. 3(d) and 3(e)]. The CASTOR calorimeter allows the detection of the hadronic system Y when it escapes the central detector, and the separation of the FG2 sample into subsamples corresponding to log10MY < 0.5 XM 10 log 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 E ve nt s / 0 .0 16 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 PYTHIA8-MBR Trigger Minimal activity > -1minη pX), 7 TeV→SD (pp Simulation CMS XM 10 log 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 E ve nt s / 0 .0 16 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 PYTHIA8-4C Trigger Minimal activity > -1minη pX), 7 TeV→SD (pp Simulation CMS FIG. 5 (color online). Simulated distributions of the dissociated mass MX at stable-particle level for the SD process in the FG2 sample at successive selection stages (trigger, minimal detector activity within BSC acceptance, ηmin > −1) for PYTHIA 8 MBR (left) and PYTHIA 8 4C (right). The MC samples are normalized to the luminosity of the data sample. YM 10 log 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 X M 10 lo g 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Trigger (a) XY), 7 TeV→DD (pp Simulation CMS YM 10 log 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 X M 10 lo g 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 >-1, CASTOR tag min η (b) XY), 7 TeV→DD (pp Simulation CMS YM 10 log 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 X M 10 lo g 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 > 30ηΔ (c) XY), 7 TeV→DD (pp Simulation CMS FIG. 6 (color online). Simulated (PYTHIA 8 MBR) event selection efficiency in the MX vs. MY plane for true DD events after (a) the trigger selection, and (b) the FG2 selection with a CASTOR tag or (c) the CG selection (Fig. 3). The regions delimited by the solid (red) lines in (b) and (c) are those of the cross section measurements; the dashed (red) box in (b) corresponds to the enlarged region for which the cross section is given (Sec. IX), assuming the same dependence onMX andMY ; the dashed (blue) line in (c) marks the region of Δη > 3. V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-6 and 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1, which are dominated by SD and DD events, respectively. For the purely SD events, ξX represents the fractional longitudinal momentum loss of the incoming proton. At detector level, the variable ξX is reconstructed as ξ�X ¼ P iðEi∓pi zÞffiffiffi s p ; ð2Þ where i runs over all PF objects measured in the central detector, and Ei and pi z are the energy and the longitudinal momentum of the ith PF object, respectively. The energy is related to the particle three-momentum assuming a mass that depends on the PF object type; e.g. for charged hadrons a pion mass is assumed. The signs (�) in Eq. (2) indicate whether the dissociated system is on the �z side of the detector. For the FG2-type events under study, ξX corre- sponds to ξþX . Since part of the hadronic system X escapes the detector through the forward beam hole, and since low-energy particles remain undetected because of the PF object thresholds, the reconstructed ξþX values are underestimated. This can be seen in Fig. 7, which shows a scatter plot of reconstructed vs generated values of ξX for PYTHIA 8 MBR events in the FG2 sample. As ξX decreases, its unmeasured fraction increases (the beam hole size is fixed), resulting in a larger deviation from the log10ξ þ X ¼ log10ξX line. The calibration factor CðξþX Þ, which brings the reconstructed values of ξþX [Eq. (2)] to their true values [Eq. (1)] according X ξ 10 log -6.5 -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 + Xξ 10 lo g -6.5 -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 50 100 150 200 250 7 TeV Simulation CMS FIG. 7 (color online). Two-dimensional distribution of reconstructed ξþX vs. generated ξX values for the events in the SD2 sample obtained with the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation. The solid red line represents the condition log10ξ þ X ¼ log10ξX. cal X ξ 10 log -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 E ve nt s / 0 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 (a1) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS cal X ξ 10 log -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 E ve nt s / 0 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 (b1) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS cal X ξ 10 log -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 E ve nt s / 0 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Data PYTHIA8-MBR: SD1 SD2 DD CD ND Pileup (c1) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS cal X ξ 10 log -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 E ve nt s / 0 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 (a2) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS cal X ξ 10 log -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 E ve nt s / 0 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 (b2) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS cal X ξ 10 log -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 E ve nt s / 0 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Data PYTHIA8-4C: SD1 SD2 DD ND Pileup (c2) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS FIG. 8 (color online). Detector-level distributions of the reconstructed and calibrated ξX for (a) the entire FG2 sample, and the FG2 subsamples with (b) no CASTOR tag, and (c) a CASTOR tag (statistical errors only). The data are compared to the predictions of the PYTHIA 8 MBR (top three plots) and PYTHIA 8 4C (bottom three plots) simulations, which are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample. The contribution of each of the generated processes is shown separately. MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-7 to the formula log10ξcalX ¼ log10ξ þ X þ CðξþX Þ, is evaluated from the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, by studying the log10ξX − log10ξ þ X difference in bins of log10ξ þ X . The factor CðξþX Þ decreases from the value of 1.1 at log10ξ þ X ≈ −6.5 to 0.2 at log10ξ þ X ≈ −2.5, with an uncertainty of 9%, estimated by comparing the PYTHIA 8 MBR and PYTHIA 8 4C simulations. Figure 8 presents the distribution of the calibrated log10ξcalX for the FG2 sample, compared to the predictions of the PYTHIA 8 MBR (top) and PYTHIA 8 4C (bottom) simulations. Figure 8(a) shows the comparison for the entire FG2 sample. The separation of the SD and DD processes (hatched green and solid yellow histograms, respectively) by means of the CASTOR tag is clearly seen in Figs. 8(b) and 8(c). Overall, the PYTHIA 8 MBR MC describes the data better than PYTHIA 8 4C and is therefore used to extract the diffractive cross sections. Both MC predictions are presented for a Pomeron trajectory with ε ¼ 0.08 and describe the region of low ξX well. At higher ξX values, ε ¼ 0.104 would be more appropriate [14], providing a better agreement with the data in that region. Since the MX dependence of ε is currently not available in the MC models used for this analysis, we extract cross sections using ε ¼ 0.08 and evaluate a systematic uncer- tainty related to the possible variation of ε, as explained in Sec. IX. The differential cross sections measured in bins of ξX, separately for log10MY < 0.5 (no CASTOR tag) and 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1 (CASTOR tag), are calculated with the formula TABLE I. The differential forward pseudorapidity gap cross sections dσ=dlog10ξX for log10MY < 0.5 (SD dominated, without CASTOR tag) and 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1 (DD dominated, with CASTOR tag). The first and the second errors correspond to statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. bin dσno-CASTOR= d log ξX (mb) dσCASTOR= d log ξX (mb) −5.5 < log10ξX < −5.0 1.17� 0.02þ0.08 −0.11 0.30� 0.01þ0.03 −0.04 −5.0 < log10ξX < −4.5 1.16� 0.02þ0.18 −0.17 0.30� 0.01� 0.04 −4.5 < log10ξX < −4.0 0.91� 0.02þ0.15 −0.12 0.26� 0.01� 0.03 −4.0 < log10ξX < −3.5 0.88� 0.02þ0.10 −0.09 0.32� 0.01þ0.03 −0.05 −3.5 < log10ξX < −3.0 0.98� 0.02þ0.14 −0.13 0.51� 0.01þ0.06 −0.05 −3.0 < log10ξX < −2.5 0.78� 0.03þ0.11 −0.09 0.67� 0.03þ0.12 −0.10 X ξ 10 log -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g σd 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 < 0.5YM 10 log (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS (a) X ξ 10 log -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g σd 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Data PYTHIA version: =0.08)ε P8-MBR ( =0.104)ε P8-MBR ( P8-4C P6-Z2* < 1.1YM 10 0.5 < log (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS (c) X ξ 10 log -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g σd 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 < 0.5YM 10 log (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS (b) X ξ 10 log -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g σd 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Data PHOJET QGSJET-II-03 QGSJET-II-04 EPOS-LHC < 1.1YM 10 0.5 < log (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS (d) FIG. 9 (color online). Cross sections dσ=dlog10ξX for (a,b) log10MY < 0.5 (SD dominated) and (c,d) 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1 (DD dominated) compared to MC predictions: (a,c) PYTHIA 8 MBR, PYTHIA 8 4C, PYTHIA 6 Z2*, and (b,d) PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, EPOS. Error bars are dominated by systematic uncertainties (discussed in Sec. XI). V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-8 dσ dlog10ξX ¼ Nevt LðΔlog10ξXÞbin ; ð3Þ where Nevt is the number of events in the bin, corrected for acceptance and migration effects, L is the integrated luminosity, and ðΔlog10ξXÞbin is the bin width. The accep- tance and migration corrections are evaluated with the iterative Bayesian unfolding technique [28], as imple- mented in the ROOUNFOLD package [29], with four iterations. The number of iterations is optimized following the procedure suggested in Ref. [28], by studying the difference in χ2 (goodness-of-fit) values after consecutive iterations; the final unfolded distribution, folded back to the detector level, is consistent with the observed data. The response matrix is obtained with PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.08). The results are presented in Table I; they include a small correction for overlapping pp collisions (∼7%), evaluated by comparing MC simulations with and without pileup. Figures 9(a,c) present the measured cross sections compared to the PYTHIA 8 MBR, PYTHIA 8 4C, and PYTHIA 6 Z2* predictions. The error bars of the data points are dominated by systematic uncertainties, which are discussed in Sec. XI. The predictions of PYTHIA 8 MBR are shown for two values of the ε parameter of the Pomeron trajectory. Both values, ε ¼ 0.08 and ε ¼ 0.104, describe the measured cross section for log10MY < 0.5. The data for 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1 favor the smaller value of ε, specifi- cally in the region of lower ξX, corresponding to the topology in which both dissociation masses are low. The prediction of the Schuler-Sjöstrand model, used in the PYTHIA 8 4C simulation, describes well the measured cross section for 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1, while the PYTHIA 6 Z2* simulation overestimates it. Both predictions are higher than the data for log10MY < 0.5 at high log10ξX, and the predicted rising behavior of the cross section is not confirmed by the data in the region of the measure- ment, −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5. Figures 9(b,d) present a comparison of the measured cross sections with the PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS predictions. None of the models is able to describe the magnitude of the cross section in the region 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1. For log10MY < 0.5, the PHOJET and EPOS generators fail to describe the falling behavior of the data, QGSJET-II 03 describes the measured cross section reasonably well, while QGSJET-II 04 underestimates the magnitude of the cross section. VII. CENTRAL PSEUDORAPIDITY GAP CROSS SECTION FROM THE CG EVENT SAMPLE The cross section for events with a central pseudora- pidity gap is measured as a function of the variable Δη, defined as Δη ¼ − log ξ, where ξ ¼ M2 XM 2 Y=ðsm2 pÞ, with mp the proton mass. For purely DD events, the position of the gap center is related to the dissociation masses by the expression ηc ¼ logðMY=MXÞ. As discussed in Sec. V, the central-gap width [Fig. 4(c)] is reconstructed as Δη0 ¼ η0max − η0min. The calibration factor C, which corrects Δη0 for detector effects according to the formula Δη0cal ¼ Δη0rec − C, is extracted from the PYTHIA 8 MBR MC as the difference C ¼ Δη0rec − Δη0gen. It amounts to C ¼ 2.42� 0.12, with the uncertainty estimated from a comparison with PYTHIA 8 4C. Figure 10 presents the distribution of the calibrated Δη0 for the CG sample along with simulated distributions from PYTHIA 8 MBR and PYTHIA 8 4C. The differential cross section, measured in bins of Δη for Δη > 3, log10MX > 1.1, and log10MY > 1.1, is calculated according to the formula dσ dΔη ¼ Nevt LðΔηÞbin ; ð4Þ where Nevt is the number of events in a given bin, corrected for acceptance and migration effects, and also for the cal 0ηΔ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E ve nt s / 1 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 Data PYTHIA8-MBR: SD1 SD2 DD CD ND Pileup (a) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS cal 0ηΔ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E ve nt s / 1 .5 u ni ts 2000 4000 6000 8000 Data PYTHIA8-4C: SD1 SD2 DD ND Pileup (b) (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS FIG. 10 (color online). Detector-level distributions of recon- structed and calibrated Δη0 values for the measured CG sample with a central LRG. The data are compared to predictions of (a) PYTHIA 8 MBR, and (b) PYTHIA 8 4C simulations normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample. Contributions for each of the generated processes are shown separately. MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-9 extrapolation from Δη0 > 3 (for gaps overlapping η ¼ 0) to Δη > 3 for all gaps, L is the integrated luminosity, and ðΔηÞbin is the bin width. The acceptance and migration corrections are evaluated with the iterative Bayesian unfolding technique [28] with two iterations, optimized as described in Sec. VI. The response matrix is obtained using PYTHIA 8 MBR with ε ¼ 0.08. The measured differential cross section is presented in Table II, and compared to predictions of theoretical models in Fig. 11. The results take into account the pileup correction, and the uncertainties are dominantly systematic (see Sec. XI). The prediction of the PYTHIA 8 MBR MC simulation with both ε ¼ 0.08 and 0.104 describes well the central-gap data. PYTHIA 8 4C underestimates the data in all bins, while PYTHIA 6 Z2* overestimates the data in the lowest Δη bin. The PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS generators underestimate the magnitude of the measured cross section. VIII. INTEGRATED CROSS SECTIONS The forward and central pseudorapidity gap samples are also used to measure the integrated cross sections in the kinematic regions given in Secs. VI and VII. The forward pseudorapidity-gap cross sections, σno-CASTOR and σCASTOR, are measured in the region −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5, for events without and with a CASTOR tag, corresponding to log10MY<0.5, and 0.5< log10MY <1.1, respectively, while the central pseudorapidity-gap cross section, σCG, is measured for Δη > 3, log10MX > 1.1, and log10MY > 1.1. Each cross section is evaluated by means of the formula σ ¼ Nevt AL ; ð5Þ where Nevt is the number of events in the kinematic regions given above, A is the acceptance, defined as the ratio of the number of events reconstructed to the number of events generated in that bin, taking into account the pileup correction, and L is the integrated luminosity. The accep- tance is evaluated with the PYTHIA 8 MBR MC generator. Values of σno-CASTOR ¼ 2.99� 0.02ðstatÞþ0.32 −0.29ðsystÞ mb, σCASTOR ¼ 1.18� 0.02ðstatÞ � 0.13ðsystÞ mb, and σCG ¼ 0.58� 0.01ðstatÞþ0.13 −0.11ðsystÞ mb are obtained. Systematic uncertainties are evaluated as discussed in Sec. XI. As a consistency check of the analysis procedure, we measure the part of the total inelastic cross sections that is visible in the central CMS detector, corresponding to the region log10MX > 1.1 or log10MY > 1.1. A value of σcheckvis ¼ 61.29� 0.07ðstatÞ mb is found, in good agreement with the published CMS result σinelðξ > 5 × 10−6Þ ¼ 60.2� 0.2ðstatÞ � 1.1ðsystÞ � 2.4ðlumiÞ mb, measured in a slightly different kinematic region (MX or MY≳ 16.7 GeV) [30]. According to PYTHIA 8 MBR, the phase space difference between the two measurements corre- sponds to σcheckvis − σinelðξ > 5 × 10−6Þ ¼ 0.5 mb. Table III lists the measured cross sections together with the absolute predictions of the MC simulations. Based on the results presented thus far, the following conclusions can be drawn about the models: PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS predict too few DD events, which dominate the measured σCASTOR and σCG cross sections [Figs. 9(d) and 11(b)]; among these four models only QGSJET-II 03 satisfactorily predicts the σno-CASTOR cross section [Fig. 9(b)]; PYTHIA 8 4C, ξ -ln≡ηΔ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ( m b) ηΔ /dσd 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Data PYTHIA version: =0.08)ε P8-MBR ( =0.104)ε P8-MBR ( P8-4C P6-Z2* >3ηΔ > 1.1YM 10 > 1.1, logXM 10 log (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS (a) ξ -ln≡ηΔ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ( m b) ηΔ /dσd 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Data PHOJET QGSJET-II-03 QGSJET-II-04 EPOS-LHC >3ηΔ > 1.1YM 10 > 1.1, logXM 10 log (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS (b) FIG. 11 (color online). The central pseudorapidity-gap cross section dσ=dΔη (DD dominated) compared to MC predictions: (a) PYTHIA 8 MBR, PYTHIA 8 4C, and PYTHIA 6 Z2*, and (b) PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS. Error bars are dominated by systematic uncertainties, which are discussed in Sec. XI. TABLE II. The differential central pseudorapidity gap (DD dominated) cross section dσ=dΔη for Δη > 3, log10MX > 1.1, and log10MY > 1.1. The first and second errors correspond to statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. Δη bin dσCG=dΔη (mb) 3.0 < Δη < 4.5 0.25� 0.003þ0.05 −0.04 4.5 < Δη < 6.0 0.11� 0.002þ0.03 −0.02 6.0 < Δη < 7.5 0.032� 0.001� 0.009 V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-10 PYTHIA 6 Z2*, PHOJET, and EPOS do not predict correctly the ξX dependence for the SD process, which dominates the measured forward pseudorapidity gap cross section for log10MY < 0.5 [Fig. 9(a), 9(b)]; and PYTHIA 8 MBR describes the data within uncertainties in all the measured regions. IX. THE SD AND DD CROSS SECTIONS The σno-CASTOR cross section discussed above is domi- nated by SD events [Fig. 8(b)], whereas the σCASTOR and σCG cross sections are mainly due to DD events (Figs. 8(c) and 10). As the contribution from ND and other diffractive processes to these cross sections is small, we use the event decomposition as defined in the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation with ε ¼ 0.08 to correct for them and extract the SD and DD cross sections. The dominant background in the σno-CASTOR cross section originates from DD events; the CD contribution is minimal, while the ND contribution is negligible [Fig. 8(b)]. The DD contribution is well understood via the CASTOR-tag events [Fig.8(c)],andhasanuncertaintyof∼10%–20%dueto the ND contamination. Since the DD events contribute about 20%to the no-CASTOR-tag sample, theuncertainty in theSD cross section due to the subtraction of the DD component amounts to only a few percent. The visible part of the total SD cross section, corresponding to −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5, is found to be σSDvis ¼ 4.06� 0.04ðstatÞþ0.69 −0.63ðsystÞ mb. The result accounts for both pp → Xp and pp → pY. The dominant background to the σCASTOR and σCG cross sections originates from ND events. The CD and SD contributions are negligible in the CASTOR-tag sample, while SD events contribute minimally to the central-gap sample [Figs. 8(c) and 10(a)]. The total DD cross sections integrated over the regions (i) −5.5< log10ξX<−2.5 and 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1, and (ii) Δη > 3, log10MX > 1.1 and log10MY > 1.1, are σDDvisCASTOR ¼ 1.06� 0.02ðstatÞ � 0.12ðsystÞ mb, and σDDvisCG ¼ 0.56� 0.01ðstatÞþ0.15 −0.13ðsystÞ mb, respectively. To provide the DD cross section in the widest kinematic region spanned by the data, we also evaluate the visible DD cross section, σDDvis, defined as σDDvis ¼ 2σDDvisCASTORþ σDDvisCG , where the factor of 2 assumes the same depen- dence of the DD cross section on MX and MY [boxed regions in Fig. 6(b)]. This leads to σDDvis ¼ 2.69� 0.04ðstatÞþ0.29 −0.30ðsystÞ, in the kinematic region delimited by the solid and dashed (red) lines in Figs. 6(b) and 6(c). This result is used below to extrapolate the DD cross section to the regionΔη > 3 [to the left of the dashed (blue) line in Fig. 6(c)]. A. Extrapolation of the visible SD and DD cross sections The measurements based on the central CMS detector are insensitive to the low-mass part of diffractive dissoci- ation. Therefore, in order to compare the measured σSDvis cross section with results of other experiments and theo- retical models that present integrated cross sections for ξ < 0.05, an extrapolation from −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5 (ξX ¼ M2 X=s) to ξ < 0.05 is required. Similarly, the σDDvis cross section must be extrapolated to Δη > 3 (Fig. 6). The extrapolation factors, calculated by using each of the MC simulations introduced in Sec. III, are presented in Appendix A. Not all of the simulations are able to describe the measured cross sections (see Sec. VIII), nor do they include realistic hadronization models (see Appendix B). Following the discussion in Sec. VIII and Appendix B, the extrapolation factors are determined with PYTHIA 8 MBR (with ε ¼ 0.08), which describes well all aspects of our data. The multiplicative factor needed to extrapolate the measured SD cross section to ξ < 0.05 is fSDMBR¼2.18þ13% −4% , and that for the extrapolation of the DD cross section to Δη > 3 is fDDMBR ¼ 1.92þ31% −10% (Tables VI and VII in Appendix A). The extrapolation uncertainties are estimated by changing the parameters α0 and ε of the Pomeron trajectory from their nominal values (α0 ¼ 0.25 GeV−2, ε ¼ 0.08) to those presented in Tables VI and VII (one parameter changed at a time), and adding in quadrature the corresponding deviations with respect to the central result, TABLE III. Measured σno-CASTOR, σCASTOR, and σCG cross sections, compared to predictions of MC models. The first and the second errors in the data correspond to statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. σno-CASTORðmbÞ σCASTOR (mb) σCG (mb) SD dominated DD dominated DD dominated Data 2.99� 0.02þ0.32 −0.29 1.18� 0.02� 0.13 0.58� 0.01þ0.13 −0.11 PYTHIA 8 MBR 3.05 1.24 0.54 PYTHIA 8 4C 3.31 1.10 0.40 PYTHIA 6 Z2* 3.86 1.52 0.78 PHOJET 3.06 0.63 0.32 QGSJET-II 03 2.63 0.48 0.22 QGSJET-II 04 1.70 0.78 0.37 EPOS 2.99 0.85 0.31 MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-11 separately for the positive and negative deviations. The extrapolatedSDandDDcrosssectionsthusobtainedareσSD ¼ 8.84� 0.08ðstatÞþ1.49 −1.38ðsystÞþ1.17 −0.37ðextrap mb and σDD ¼ 5.17� 0.08ðstatÞþ0.55 −0.57ðsystÞþ1.62 −0.51ðextrapÞ mb, respectively. Figure 12(a) presents the extrapolated SD cross section compared to the ALICE result [3] and a compilation of lower center-of-mass energy measurements [31–35]. The data are also compared to the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, as well as to the GLM [36] and KP [37,38] models. The CMS result is consistent with a SD cross section weakly rising with energy. Figure 12(b) shows the extrapolated DD cross section compared to the ALICE results [3], those by CDF at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 630 GeV and 1.8 TeV [39], as well as the PYTHIA 8 MBR, GLM [36], and KP [37,38] models. The CMSmeasurement at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV is in agreement with the ALICE measure- ment at the same energy. Note, however, that the ALICE result is obtained from the NSD (non-single-diffractive ¼ DDþ ND) data, while for the CMS measurement the ND background has been subtracted. Here as well, the data are consistent with a weakly rising cross section with energy, as predicted by the models. B. Summary of results Table IV presents the summary of the cross section measurements illustrated in the previous sections, together with the kinematic region covered by each measurement. The method used for the cross section extraction (LRG or MBR) is given as well. The σno-CASTOR, σCASTOR, and σCG cross sections are measured from all the events passing the LRG selection (Sec. VIII). The σSDvis, σDDvisCASTOR, and σDDvisCG cross sections are extracted from the latter ones by subtracting the background contribution from other proc- esses as predicted by the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation (Sec. IX). In addition, σDDvis is calculated from the combination of σDDvisCASTOR and σDDvisCG . Finally, the σSD and σDD cross sections (Sec. IX A) are calculated by extrapo- lating σSDvis and σDDvis to the region of lower diffractive masses using the mass dependence of the cross section predicted by PYTHIA 8 MBR. X. PSEUDORAPIDITY GAP CROSS SECTION This section presents the results of an alternative approach to the study of diffractive events, in which the data are analyzed in terms of the widest pseudorapidity gap adjacent to the edge of the detector [40]. In each event, particles are first ordered in η, and the largest pseudor- apidity gap, ΔηF, is determined as ΔηF ¼ maxðjηmin − η−j; jηmax − ηþjÞ, where η� ¼ �4.7 are the detector edges in η, and ηmax (ηmin) is the highest (lowest) η of the PF objects in the event (see Fig. 3). The analysis is based on a minimum bias data sample, selected as described in Sec. IV, with negligible pileup (0.006), and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 20.3 μb−1. The uncorrected distribution of the pseudora- pidity gap size is shown in Fig. 13, along with the predictions of various MC models. A wider bin width is used at low ΔηF to account for the lower spatial resolution in the forward region. A. Corrections for experimental effects Interactions of the beam protons with the residual gas particles in the beam pipe or inside the detector region affect the pseudorapidity gap distribution in data. The overall beam-induced background, integrated over the full measurement region, is about 0.7%. After the subtraction of this background, the differential cross section dσ=dΔηF is determined according to the formula dσ dΔηF ¼ Nevt TεLðΔηFÞbin ; ð6Þ (GeV)s 10 210 310 410 ( m b) S D σ 0 5 10 15 20 25 CMS (extrapolated with PYTHIA8-MBR) ALICE CDF E710 UA4 CHLM (ISR) Armitage et al. (ISR) =0.104)ε PYTHIA8-MBR ( =0.08)ε PYTHIA8-MBR ( GLM KP < 0.05ξ (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS(a) (GeV)s 10 210 310 410 ( m b) D D σ 0 5 10 15 20 25 CMS (extrapolated with PYTHIA8-MBR) ALICE NSD (DD+ND) CDF =0.104)ε PYTHIA8-MBR ( =0.08)ε PYTHIA8-MBR ( GLM KP > 3ηΔ (7 TeV)-1bμ16.2 CMS(b) FIG. 12 (color online). Diffractive cross sections as a function of collision energy measured in pp and pp̄ collisions [3,31–35,39] compared to PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.08, 0.104) and other model predictions [36–38]: (a) total SD cross section for ξ < 0.05, and (b) total DD cross section for Δη > 3. The inner (outer) error bars of the CMS data points correspond to the statistical and systematic (and the additional extrapolation) uncertainties added in quadrature. V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-12 where Nevt is the number of events in the bin, corrected for migration effects, Tε the trigger efficiency, L the integrated luminosity, and ðΔηFÞbin the bin width. The trigger efficiency is obtained from a comparison with zero-bias data where no trigger requirements were applied. In order to have a satisfactory correlation between the generated and reconstructed values of ΔηF, and hence a reliable correction for bin-migration effects, the cross section is evaluated for events with at least one stable final-state particle of transverse momentum pT > 200 MeV in the region of jηj < 4.7. The migration cor- rections are evaluated with the iterative Bayesian unfolding technique [28], as implemented in the ROOUNFOLD pack- age [29], with a single iteration. The response matrix is obtained with PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.08). The cross section is measured only for ΔηF < 8.4, so as to avoid regions where the trigger inefficiency and the unfolding uncertainty are large. B. Corrected results Figure 14 shows the unfolded and fully corrected differential cross section dσ=dΔηF for events with at least one particle with pT > 200 MeV in the region of jηj < 4.7. As the statistical uncertainty is negligible, only the sys- tematic uncertainty, discussed in Sec. XI, is shown. The predictions from PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.08 and 0.104), PYTHIA 8 tune 4C, and PYTHIA 6 tune Z2* are also given. The MC predictions show that in the pseudorapidity range covered by the measurement, jηj < 4.7, a large fraction of nondiffractive events can be suppressed by means of the ΔηF > 3 requirement. The present results are consistent with those from the ATLAS Collaboration [4], as shown in Fig. 15. The ATLAS measurement uses all stable final-state particles with pT > 200 MeV over the region jηj < 4.9. According to the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, the difference in the η coverage between the two experiments causes changes in the ΔηF distribution of up to 5%. TABLE IV. Measured diffractive cross sections in regions ofMX (or ξX ¼ M2 X=s),MY (or ξY ¼ M2 Y=s), and Δη (Δη ¼ − log ξ, where ξ ¼ M2 XM 2 Y=ðsm2 pÞ for DD). The method used for the cross section extraction is indicated as LRG for calculations involving all events selected in the LRG samples, and as MBR for calculations that involve background subtraction or extrapolation based on the prediction of the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation. The first and the second errors in the data correspond to the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. For σSD and σDD, the third errors correspond to the extrapolation uncertainties. Cross section MX or ξX range MY or ξY range Δη range Result (mb) LRG σno-CASTOR −5.5 < log ξX < −2.5 log10MY < 0.5 … 2.99� 0.02þ0.32 −0.29 σCASTOR −5.5 < log ξX < −2.5 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1 … 1.18� 0.02� 0.13 σCG log10MX > 1.1 log10MY > 1.1 Δη > 3 0.58� 0.01þ0.13 −0.11 MBR σSDvis −5.5 < log ξX < −2.5 MY ¼ mp … 4.06� 0.04þ0.69 −0.63 MX ¼ mp −5.5 < log ξY < −2.5 … σDDvisCASTOR −5.5 < log ξX < −2.5 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1 … 1.06� 0.02� 0.12 σDDvisCG log10MX > 1.1 log10MY > 1.1 Δη > 3 0.56� 0.01þ0.15 −0.13 σDDvis −5.5 < log ξX < −2.5 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1 … 2.69� 0.04þ0.29 −0.30 0.5 < log10MX < 1.1 −5.5 < log ξY < −2.5 … log10MX > 1.1 log10MY > 1.1 Δη > 3 MBR σSD ξX < 0.05 MY ¼ mp … 8.84� 0.08þ1.49þ1.17 −1.38−0.37 MX ¼ mp ξY < 0.05 … σDD … … Δη > 3 5.17� 0.08þ0.55þ1.62 −0.57−0.51 CMS Uncorrected data PYTHIA8-MBR (ε=0.08) PYTHIA8-MBR (ε=0.104) PYTHIA8 4C PYTHIA6 Z2 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 1 20.3 μb-1 (7 TeV) 1/ N ev en ts 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 ηF M C /D at a FIG. 13 (color online). Uncorrected ΔηF distribution compared to various detector-level MC predictions. MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-13 XI. SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES Systematic uncertainties are obtained by varying the selection criteria and modifying the analysis. The following sources of systematic uncertainties are taken into account for the results presented in Secs. VI–X: (i) HF energy scale: varied in the MC simulations by �10%, to reflect the energy scale uncertainty esti- mated for data. (ii) PF energy thresholds: raised by 10%, based on dedicated studies of the detector noise. (iii) Modeling of the diffractive interaction and the hadronization process: the hadronization parameters in the nominal PYTHIA 8 MBRMC sample are tuned to describe the multiplicity and pT spectra of diffractive systems in pp and pp̄ collisions at ffiffiffi s p ≤ 1800 GeV [41]. The corresponding uncertainty is estimated by taking the difference (see Appendix B) between the results obtained with PYTHIA 8 MBR and those obtained with PYTHIA 8 4C (Secs. VI–IX), or PYTHIA 8 4C and PYTHIA 6-Z2* (Sec. X). CMS (a)Data MinBias, P8-MBR (ε=0.08) Diffractive Dissociation ND SD DD CD 10 1 1 10 1 10 2 20.3 μb-1 (7 TeV) dσ /d ηF (m b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ηF M C /D at a CMS (b)Data MinBias, P8-MBR (ε=0.104) Diffractive Dissociation ND SD DD CD 10 1 1 10 1 10 2 20.3 μb-1 (7 TeV) dσ /d ηF (m b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ηF M C /D at a CMS (c)Data MinBias, P8-4C Diffractive Dissociation ND SD DD 10 1 1 10 1 10 2 20.3 μb-1 (7 TeV) dσ /d ηF (m b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ηF M C /D at a CMS (d)Data MinBias, P6-Z2 Diffractive Dissociation ND SD DD 10 1 1 10 1 10 2 20.3 μb-1 (7 TeV) dσ /d ηF (m b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ηF M C /D at a FIG. 14 (color online). Differential cross section dσ=dΔηF for stable particles with pT > 200 MeV in the region jηj < 4.7 compared to the corresponding predictions of (a) PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.08), (b) PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.104), (c) PYTHIA 8 tune 4C, and (d) PYTHIA 6 tune Z2*. The band around the data points represents the total systematic uncertainty, which is discussed in Sec. XI. V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-14 (iv) The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity meas- urement is �4% [42,43]. In addition, the following checks are carried out for the results shown in Secs. VI–IX: (i) CASTOR energy scale [44]: changed in the simu- lation by�20%, to reflect the estimated energy scale uncertainty for the data. (ii) CASTOR energy threshold in each sector [16]: changed from the nominal 4σ to 3.5σ and 5σ, where σ is the pedestal width. (iii) CASTOR alignment uncertainty [45]: the simulated CASTOR position in the plane transverse to the beamline is varied within the limits allowed by the condition that the MC description of the energy flow in CASTOR remains satisfactory. This corresponds to about 10 mm and 4 mm, for the left and right CASTOR sides, respectively. (iv) Trigger efficiency uncertainty: estimated from a comparison of efficiency curves between data (mea- sured by using a control sample for which no trigger requirements were applied) and MC. (v) Background subtraction: backgrounds from DD and ND events in the SD sample, and from ND and SD in the DD sample are estimated with PYTHIA 8 MBR (Figs. 8 and 10). The corresponding uncertainty is estimated by varying their relative contributions by �10% (average normalization uncertainty of the model). The contribution from CD events in the SD and DD samples is negligible. The total systematic uncertainty is obtained by summing all individual uncertainties in quadrature, separately for the positive and negative deviations from the nominal cross section values, leading to a total systematic uncertainty of up to 25%. Table V presents the summary of the systematic uncertainties for the measurement of the σSDvis, σDDvisCASTOR, and σDDvisCG cross sections. The systematic uncertainties are significantly larger than the statistical ones, and the dominant sources are the HF energy scale and the modeling of diffraction and hadronization. For the σDDvisCASTOR cross section, also the uncertainty related to the CASTOR alignment is significant. XII. SUMMARY Measurements of diffractive dissociation cross sections in pp collisions at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV have been presented in kinematic regions defined by the massesMX andMY of the two final-state hadronic systems separated by the largest rapidity gap in the event. Differential cross sections are measured as a function of ξX ¼ M2 X=s in the region −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5, for log10MY < 0.5, dominated by single dissociation (SD), and 0.5 < log10MY < 1.1, dominated by double dissociation (DD). The discrimina- tion between the above two MY regions is performed by means of the CASTOR forward calorimeter. The cross sections integrated over these regions are σno-CASTOR ¼ 2.99� 0.02ðstatÞþ0.32 −0.29ðsystÞ mb and σCASTOR ¼ 1.18� 0.02ðstatÞ � 0.13ðsystÞ mb, respectively. The inclusive pp cross section is also measured as a function of the width of the central pseudorapidity gap, Δη, for Δη > 3, log10MX > 1.1, and log10MY > 1.1 (domi- nated by DD contributions). The corresponding integrated cross section is σCG ¼ 0.58� 0.01ðstatÞþ0.13 −0.11ðsystÞ mb. CMS Data ATLAS Data, 7.1 μb-1 (7 TeV) 10 1 1 10 1 10 2 20.3 μb-1 (7 TeV) dσ /d ηF (m b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ηF AT LA S /C M S FIG. 15 (color online). Differential cross section dσ=dΔηF for stable particles with pT > 200 MeV in the region jηj < 4.7 compared to the ATLAS result [4]: distributions (top) and ratio to the CMS measurement (bottom). The band represents the total systematic uncertainty in the CMS measurement, while the uncertainty in the ATLAS measurement is shown by the error bars. The stable-particle level definitions of the two measure- ments are not exactly identical: CMS measures the forward pseudorapidity gap size starting from η ¼ �4.7, whereas the ATLAS limit is η ¼ �4.9. TABLE V. Systematic uncertainties for the measurement of the σSDvis, σDDvisCASTOR, and σDDvisCG cross sections; individual contribu- tions, as well as total systematic and statistical uncertainties, are shown. Uncertainty (%) Source σSDvis σDDvisCASTOR σDDvisCG HF energy scale 10 1.6 23 PF thresholds 0.8 0.4 6.9 Diff. and had. modeling 10 4.3 0.4 Luminosity 4 4 4 CASTOR energy scale 0.5 0.9 0 CASTOR threshold 0.9 2.8 0 CASTOR alignment 2.6 8.3 0 Trigger 0.6 0.6 0.7 Background sub. 4.3 0.4 1.3 Total systematic 16 11 25 Statistical 0.9 1.8 1.3 MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-15 The SD and DD cross sections in the above three regions, extracted by means of the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation, which provides a good description of the data, are σSDvis ¼ 4.06� 0.04ðstatÞþ0.69 −0.63ðsystÞ mb (accounting for both pp → Xp and pp → pY), σDDvisCASTOR ¼ 1.06� 0.02ðstatÞ � 0.12ðsystÞ mb, and σDDvisCG ¼ 0.56� 0.01ðstatÞþ0.15 −0.13ðsystÞ mb, respectively. Extrapolations of the SD and DD cross sections to the regions ξ < 0.05 and Δη > 3, performed with PYTHIA 8 MBR, yield σSD ¼ 8.84� 0.08ðstatÞþ1.49 −1.38 ðsystÞþ1.17 −0.37ðextrapÞ mb and σDD ¼ 5.17� 0.08ðstatÞþ0.55 −0.57 ðsystÞþ1.62 −0.51ðextrapÞ mb, respectively. In addition, the inclusive differential cross section dσ=dΔηF for events with a pseudorapidity gap adjacent to the edge of the detector is measured over 8.4 units of pseudorapidity. These measurements are compared to results from other experiments as well as to phenomenological predictions. The data are consistent with the SD and DD cross sections weakly rising with energy, and provide new experimental constraints on the modeling of diffraction in hadronic interactions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effec- tively the computing infrastructure essential to our analy- ses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the Austrian Science Fund; the Belgian Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, and Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Brazilian Funding Agencies (CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP); the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science; CERN; the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, and National Natural Science Foundation of China; the Colombian Funding Agency (COLCIENCIAS); the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, and the Croatian Science Foundation; the Research Promotion Foundation, Cyprus; the Ministry of Education and Research, Estonian Research Council via IUT23-4 and IUT23-6 and European Regional Development Fund, Estonia; the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and Helsinki Institute of Physics; the Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules/CNRS, and Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives/CEA, France; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren, Germany; the General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece; the National Scientific Research Foundation, and National Innovation Office, Hungary; the Department of Atomic Energy and the Department of Science and Technology, India; the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Iran; the Science Foundation, Ireland; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and National Research Foundation (NRF), Republic of Korea; the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; the Ministry of Education, and University of Malaya (Malaysia); the Mexican Funding Agencies (CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP- FAI); the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand; the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Centre, Poland; the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal; JINR, Dubna; the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Federal Agency of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia; the Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the Swiss Funding Agencies (ETH Board, ETH Zurich, PSI, SNF, UniZH, Canton Zurich, and SER); the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei; the Thailand Center of Excellence in Physics, the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology of Thailand, Special Task Force for Activating Research and the National Science and Technology Development Agency of Thailand; the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, and Turkish Atomic Energy Authority; the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and State Fund for Fundamental Researches, Ukraine; the Science and Technology Facilities Council, UK; the US Department of Energy, and the US National Science Foundation. Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and EPLANET (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT- Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund; the Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino); the Consorzio per la V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-16 Fisica (Trieste); MIUR project 20108T4XTM (Italy); the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; and the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund. APPENDIX A: SD/DD EXTRAPOLATION FACTORS Figure 16 shows the ξX ¼ M2 X=s dependence of the SD cross section for the PYTHIA 8 4C, PYTHIA 6 Z2*, PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS simulations, compared to the nominal PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation used in this analysis for two regions of ξX, −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5 (dashed yellow) and ξX < 0.05 (solid khaki). In addition, the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulations with values of α0 and ε changed to α0 ¼ 0.125 GeV−2, ε ¼ 0.104, and ε ¼ 0.07 (one parameter changed at a time) are also included to provide a scale for their effect on the cross sections. Extrapolation factors, defined as the ratios of σSDðξX < 0.05Þ to σSD;visð−5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5Þ, are presented for each of the above ten MC models in Table VI. For each model, two ratios are evaluated, one in which both cross sections (numerator and denominator of the extrapolation factor) are calculated by using the same generator (fSD), X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PYTHIA8-4C <-2.5 X ξ P8-MBR, -5.5< log <0.05 X ξ P8-MBR, X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PYTHIA6-Z2* X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PHOJET X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 QGSJET-II-03 X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 QGSJET-II-04 X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 EPOS-LHC X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PYTHIA8-MBR =0.125)α( X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PYTHIA8-MBR =0.104)ε( X ξ 10 log -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ( m b) Xξ 10 /d lo g S D σd 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PYTHIA8-MBR =0.07)ε( FIG. 16 (color online). Generator-level SD cross section as a function of ξX ¼ M2 X=s for ξX < 0.05, shown for PYTHIA 8 4C, PYTHIA 6 Z2*, PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, EPOS MC, and PYTHIA 8 MBR with the parameters of the Pomeron trajectory changed from the nominal values (α0 ¼ 0.25 GeV−2, ε ¼ 0.08) to α0 ¼ 0.125 GeV−2, ε ¼ 0.104, and ε ¼ 0.07 (one parameter changed at a time). The nominal PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation is presented in each plot for the two regions of ξX, −5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5 (dashed yellow) and ξX < 0.05 (solid khaki), used to extrapolate the measured SD cross section (from the dashed (yellow) to the solid (khaki) regions). MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-17 and another where the prediction of the σSD;visð−5.5 < log10ξX < −2.5Þ is calculated by using the nominal PYTHIA 8 MBR with ε ¼ 0.08 (fSDMBR). The numbers in brackets in Table VI show the relative change of the extrapolation factors with respect to the nominal PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation; the one related to fSD is sensitive to the difference in the shape of the ξX (mass) distribution, while the one related to fSDMBR is also sensitive to the normali- zation of the SD cross section. Table VII shows the extrapolation factors for the DD case, defined as the ratios of σDDðΔη > 3Þ to σDD;vis, again for two cases: one when both cross sections are calculated with the same MC generator (fDD), and the other when the predicted σDD;vis cross section is from PYTHIA 8 MBR with ε ¼ 0.08 (fDDMBR). The relative change of the extrapolation factors with respect to the nominal PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation is shown in brackets; the one related to fDD accounts for the difference in the shape of the MX and MY dependence, while the one related to fDDMBR is sensitive to the difference in the mass dependence and the normaliza- tion of the DD cross section. APPENDIX B: MC HADRONIZATION MODELS In this section, the hadronization models used to generate particle spectra in the simulations introduced in Sec. III are compared to a reference model [41,46] based on data. The model correctly describes the charged-particle multiplicity and pT spectra of diffractive and inclusive proton-(anti)proton data for ffiffiffi s p ≤ 1800 GeV by assuming that the Pomeron-proton collision produces a system of mass MX that hadronizes as if it had been produced in a nondiffractive proton-proton collision at ffiffiffi s p ¼ MX. Figures 17 and 18 show the charged-particle multiplicity distributions and pT spectra for the SD process for three ranges ofMX: 5.6 < MX < 10 GeV, 32 < MX < 56 GeV, and 178 < MX < 316 GeV, for the PYTHIA 8 MBR, PYTHIA 8 4C, PYTHIA 6 Z2*, PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS simulations, compared to the reference model quoted above. The following conclusions can be drawn: PYTHIA 6 Z2*, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS predict smaller multiplicities and harder pT spectra than the model of Ref. [41,46]; PYTHIA 8 4C agrees with the mean values of the multiplicity distributions, but predicts narrower widths, and harder pT spectra; PHOJET predicts multiplicity distributions consistent with the refer- ence model with harder pT spectra; and PYTHIA 8 MBR agrees with the reference model in both multiplicity and pT spectra. The latter is an expected result, as the hadroniza- tion parameters of the PYTHIA 8 MBR simulation have been tuned to follow the reference model. TABLE VI. Extrapolation factors fSD ¼ σSDi ðξ < 0.05Þ=σSD;visi and fSDMBR ¼ σSDi ðξ < 0.05Þ=σSD;visMBR from the visible to total SD (ξ < 0.05) cross section for each MC model considered (i ¼ 1–10). The relative change with respect to the value obtained by PYTHIA 8 MBR with ε ¼ 0.08 is shown in parenthesis. i MC model fSD fSDMBR 1 PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.08) 2.18 (1.00) 2.18 (1.00) 2 PYTHIA 8 4C 2.32 (1.06) 2.51 (1.15) 3 PYTHIA 6 Z2* 2.29 (1.06) 2.89 (1.34) 4 PHOJET 2.06 (0.95) 2.18 (1.00) 5 QGSJET-II 03 2.72 (1.25) 3.19 (1.46) 6 QGSJET-II 04 3.62 (1.66) 2.30 (1.06) 7 EPOS 3.44 (1.58) 2.15 (0.99) 8 PYTHIA 8 MBR (α0 ¼ 0.125) 2.27 (1.04) 2.34 (1.07) 9 PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.104) 2.23 (1.03) 2.42 (1.11) 10 PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.07) 2.16 (0.99) 2.09 (0.96) TABLE VII. Extrapolation factors fDD¼σDDi ðΔη>3Þ=σDD;visi and fDDMBR ¼ σDDi ðΔη > 3Þ=σDD;visMBR from the visible to total DD (Δη > 3) cross section for each MC model considered (i ¼ 1–10). The relative change with respect to the value obtained by PYTHIA 8 MBR with ε ¼ 0.08 is shown in parentheses. i MC model fDD fDDMBR 1 PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.08) 1.92 (1.00) 1.92 (1.00) 2 PYTHIA 8 4C 2.52 (1.32) 1.86 (0.97) 3 PYTHIA 6 Z2* 2.39 (1.25) 2.15 (1.13) 4 PHOJET 1.80 (0.94) 0.60 (0.31) 5 QGSJET-II 03 … … 6 QGSJET-II 04 2.04 (1.07) 0.94 (0.49) 7 EPOS 4.73 (2.47) 1.93 (1.01) 8 PYTHIA 8 MBR (α0 ¼ 0.125) 1.97 (1.03) 2.32 (1.21) 9 PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.104) 2.00 (1.04) 2.37 (1.24) 10 PYTHIA 8 MBR (ε ¼ 0.07) 1.88 (0.98) 1.73 (0.90) V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-18 chN 0 5 10 15 20 A rb itr ar y un its < 10 GeVX5.6 < M PYTHIA8-MBR chN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 < 56 GeVX32 < M Had. Model chN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 < 316 GeVX178 < M chN 0 5 10 15 20 PYTHIA8-4C chN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 chN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 chN 0 5 10 15 20 PYTHIA6-Z2* chN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 chN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 chN 0 5 10 15 20 PHOJET chN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 chN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 chN 0 5 10 15 20 QGSJET-II-03 chN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 chN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 chN 0 5 10 15 20 QGSJET-II-04 chN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 chN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 chN 0 5 10 15 20 EPOS-LHC chN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 chN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 FIG. 17 (color online). Charged-particle multiplicity (Nch) distributions (area-normalized) in the PYTHIA 8MBR, PYTHIA 8 4C, PYTHIA 6 Z2*, PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, and EPOS MC simulations (rows) in three bins ofMX (columns) in SD collisions, compared to a reference hadronization model (dashed line), which describes the available data at ffiffiffi s p ≤ 1800 GeV [41,46]. MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-19 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 A rb itr ar y un its < 10 GeVX5.6 < M PYTHIA8-MBR (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 < 56 GeVX32 < M Had. Model (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 < 316 GeVX178 < M (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 PYTHIA8-4C (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 PYTHIA6-Z2* (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 PHOJET (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 QGSJET-II-03 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 QGSJET-II-04 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 EPOS-LHC (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (GeV) T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 FIG. 18 (color online). Transverse-momentum (pT) distributions (area-normalized) in the PYTHIA 8 MBR, PYTHIA 8 4C, PYTHIA 6 Z2*, PHOJET, QGSJET-II 03, QGSJET-II 04, EPOS MC simulations (rows) in three bins of MX (columns) in SD collisions, compared to a reference hadronization model (dashed line), which describes the available data at ffiffiffi s p ≤ 1800 GeV [41,46]. V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-20 [1] S. Donnachie, Hans Gunter Dosch, O. Nachtmann, and P. Landshoff, Pomeron Physics and QCD (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2002). [2] G. Antchev et al. (TOTEM), Double Diffractive Cross- Section Measurement in the Forward Region at LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 262001 (2013). [3] ALICE Collaboration, Measurement of inelastic, single- and double-diffraction cross sections in proton-proton collisions at the LHC with ALICE, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2456 (2013). [4] ATLAS Collaboration, Rapidity gap cross sections mea- sured with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions atffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1926 (2012). [5] V. Andreev et al., Performance studies of a full-length prototype for the CASTOR forward calorimeter at the CMS experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 601 (2010). [6] CMS Collaboration, The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC, J. Instrum. 3, S08004 (2008). [7] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026. [8] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008). [9] R. Ciesielski and K. Goulianos, Proc. Sci., ICHEP (2013) 301 [arXiv:1205.1446]. [10] K. Goulianos, Hadronic diffraction: Where do we stand? in Results and perspectives in particle physics: 18th Ren- contres de Physique de la Vallée d’Aoste, 2004, edited by Mario Greco, arXiv:hep-ph/0407035. [11] K. Goulianos, Diffraction in QCD, arXiv:hep-ph/0203141. [12] A. Donnachie and P. Landshoff, Elastic scattering and diffraction dissociation, Nucl. Phys. B244, 322 (1984). [13] A. Donnachie and P. Landshoff, Total cross-sections, Phys. Lett. B 296, 227 (1992). [14] R. J. M. Covolan, J. Montanha, and K. Goulianos, A new determination of the soft pomeron intercept, Phys. Lett. B 389, 176 (1996). [15] K. Goulianos, Pomeron intercept and slope: A QCD con- nection, Phys. Rev. D 80, 111901 (2009). [16] CMS Collaboration, Study of the underlying event at forward rapidity in pp collisions at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 0.9, 2.76, and 7 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2013) 072. [17] Fritz W. Bopp, R. Engel, and J. Ranft, Rapidity gaps and the PHOJET Monte Carlo, arXiv:hep-ph/9803437. [18] R. Engel, Photoproduction within the two-component dual parton model: Amplitudes and cross-sections, Z. Phys. C 66, 203 (1995). [19] S. Ostapchenko, QGSJET-II: Towards reliable description of very high energy hadronic interactions, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 151, 143 (2006). [20] S. Ostapchenko, Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic inter- actions in enhanced Pomeron scheme: I. QGSJET-II model, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014018 (2011). [21] K. Werner, F.-M. Liu, and T. Pierog, Parton ladder splitting and the rapidity dependence of transverse momentum spectra in deuteron-gold collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. C 74, 044902 (2006). [22] David d’Enterria, R. Engel, T. Pierog, S. Ostapchenko, and K. Werner, Constraints from the first LHC data on hadronic event generators for ultra-high energy cosmic-ray physics, Astropart. Phys. 35, 98 (2011). [23] S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4), GEANT4—a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003). [24] CMS Collaboration, Transverse momentum and pseudor- apidity distributions of charged hadrons in pp collisions atffiffiffi s p ¼ 0.9 and 2.36 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2010) 041. [25] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, 2009. [26] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001, 2010. [27] J. D. Bjorken, Rapidity gaps and jets as a new-physics signature in very-high-energy hadron-hadron collisions, Phys. Rev. D 47, 101 (1993). [28] G. D’Agostini, A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 362, 487 (1995). [29] T. Adye, Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold, in PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, edited by H. Prosper and L. Lyons (CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011), p. 313. [30] CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the inelastic proton- proton cross section at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 722, 5 (2013). [31] F. Abe et al. (CDF), Measurement of p̄p single diffraction dissociation at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 546 GeV and 1800 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 50, 5535 (1994). [32] Norman A. Amos et al. (E710), Diffraction dissociation in p̄p collisions at ffiffiffi s p ¼ 1.8-TeV, Phys. Lett. B 301, 313 (1993). [33] D. Bernard et al. (UA4), The cross section of diffraction dissociation at the CERN SPS collider, Phys. Lett. B 186, 227 (1987). [34] M. G. Albrow et al. (CHLM), Inelastic diffractive scattering at the CERN ISR, Nucl. Phys. B108, 1 (1976). [35] J. C. M. Armitage, P. Benz, G. J. Bobbink, F. C. Erne, P. Kooijman, F. K. Loebinger, A. A. MacBeth, H. E. Montgomery, P. G. Murphy, A. Rudge, J. C. Sens, D. Stork, and J. Timmer, Diffraction dissociation in proton-proton collisions at ISR energies, Nucl. Phys. B194, 365 (1982). [36] E. Gotsman, E. Levin, and U. Maor, Description of LHC data in a soft interaction model, Phys. Lett. B 716, 425 (2012). [37] A. B. Kaidalov and M. G. Poghosyan, Predictions of the quark-gluon string model for pp at LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 397 (2010). [38] A. B. Kaidalov and M. G. Poghosyan, Predictions for proton-proton interaction cross-sections at LHC, arXiv: 1109.3697. [39] T. Affolder et al. (CDF), Double Diffraction Dissociation at the Fermilab Tevatron Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 141802 (2001). [40] E. Nurse and S. Sen, Methods to select soft diffraction dissociation at the LHC, arXiv:1107.2688. [41] K. Goulianos, A new statistical description of hadronic and eþe− multiplicity distributions, Phys. Lett. B 193, 151 (1987). [42] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-EWK-10-004, 2010. MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.262001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.262001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2456-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2456-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1926-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1316-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036 http://arXiv.org/abs/1205.1446 http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0407035 http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0203141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(84)90315-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(92)90832-O http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(92)90832-O http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01362-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01362-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.111901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2013)072 http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9803437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01496594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01496594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2005.07.026 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2005.07.026 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.044902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.044902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.05.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2010)041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2010)041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.47.101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(95)00274-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(95)00274-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.5535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.5535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)90707-O http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)90707-O http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)90285-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)90285-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(76)90121-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(82)90014-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.042 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.042 http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1301-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1301-y http://arXiv.org/abs/1109.3697 http://arXiv.org/abs/1109.3697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.141802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.141802 http://arXiv.org/abs/1107.2688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)90474-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)90474-6 [43] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-DP-2011-002, 2011. [44] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-DP-2013-035, 2013. [45] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-DP-2014-014, 2014. [46] G. Arnison et al. (UA1), Transverse momentum spectra for charged particles at the CERN proton-antiproton collider, Phys. Lett. B 118, 167 (1982). V. Khachatryan,1 A. M. Sirunyan,1 A. Tumasyan,1 W. Adam,2 T. Bergauer,2 M. Dragicevic,2 J. Erö,2 C. Fabjan,2,b M. Friedl,2 R. Frühwirth,2,b V. M. Ghete,2 C. Hartl,2 N. Hörmann,2 J. Hrubec,2 M. Jeitler,2,b W. Kiesenhofer,2 V. Knünz,2 M. Krammer,2,b I. Krätschmer,2 D. Liko,2 I. Mikulec,2 D. Rabady,2,c B. Rahbaran,2 H. Rohringer,2 R. Schöfbeck,2 J. Strauss,2 A. Taurok,2 W. Treberer-Treberspurg,2 W. Waltenberger,2 C.-E. Wulz,2,b V. Mossolov,3 N. Shumeiko,3 J. Suarez Gonzalez,3 S. Alderweireldt,4 M. Bansal,4 S. Bansal,4 T. Cornelis,4 E. A. De Wolf,4 X. Janssen,4 A. Knutsson,4 S. Luyckx,4 S. Ochesanu,4 R. Rougny,4 M. Van De Klundert,4 H. Van Haevermaet,4 P. Van Mechelen,4 N. Van Remortel,4 A. Van Spilbeeck,4 F. Blekman,5 S. Blyweert,5 J. D’Hondt,5 N. Daci,5 N. Heracleous,5 J. Keaveney,5 S. Lowette,5 M. Maes,5 A. Olbrechts,5 Q. Python,5 D. Strom,5 S. Tavernier,5 W. Van Doninck,5 P. Van Mulders,5 G. P. Van Onsem,5 I. Villella,5 C. Caillol,6 B. Clerbaux,6 G. De Lentdecker,6 D. Dobur,6 L. Favart,6 A. P. R. Gay,6 A. Grebenyuk,6 A. Léonard,6 A. Mohammadi,6 L. Perniè,6,c T. Reis,6 T. Seva,6 L. Thomas,6 C. Vander Velde,6 P. Vanlaer,6 J. Wang,6 F. Zenoni,6 V. Adler,7 K. Beernaert,7 L. Benucci,7 A. Cimmino,7 S. Costantini,7 S. Crucy,7 S. Dildick,7 A. Fagot,7 G. Garcia,7 J. Mccartin,7 A. A. Ocampo Rios,7 D. Ryckbosch,7 S. Salva Diblen,7 M. Sigamani,7 N. Strobbe,7 F. Thyssen,7 M. Tytgat,7 E. Yazgan,7 N. Zaganidis,7 S. Basegmez,8 C. Beluffi,8,d G. Bruno,8 R. Castello,8 A. Caudron,8 L. Ceard,8 G. G. Da Silveira,8 C. Delaere,8 T. du Pree,8 D. Favart,8 L. Forthomme,8 A. Giammanco,8,e J. Hollar,8 A. Jafari,8 P. Jez,8 M. Komm,8 V. Lemaitre,8 C. Nuttens,8 D. Pagano,8 L. Perrini,8 A. Pin,8 K. Piotrzkowski,8 A. Popov,8,f L. Quertenmont,8 M. Selvaggi,8 M. Vidal Marono,8 J. M. Vizan Garcia,8 N. Beliy,9 T. Caebergs,9 E. Daubie,9 G. H. Hammad,9 W. L. Aldá Júnior,10 G. A. Alves,10 L. Brito,10 M. Correa Martins Junior,10 T. Dos Reis Martins,10 C. Mora Herrera,10 M. E. Pol,10 W. Carvalho,11 J. Chinellato,11,g A. Custódio,11 E. M. Da Costa,11 D. De Jesus Damiao,11 C. De Oliveira Martins,11 S. Fonseca De Souza,11 H. Malbouisson,11 D. Matos Figueiredo,11 L. Mundim,11 H. Nogima,11 W. L. Prado Da Silva,11 J. Santaolalla,11 A. Santoro,11 A. Sznajder,11 E. J. Tonelli Manganote,11,g A. Vilela Pereira,11 C. A. Bernardes,12b S. Dogra,12a T. R. Fernandez Perez Tomei,12a E. M. Gregores,12b P. G. Mercadante,12b S. F. Novaes,12a Sandra S. Padula,12a A. Aleksandrov,13 V. Genchev,13,c P. Iaydjiev,13 A. Marinov,13 S. Piperov,13 M. Rodozov,13 S. Stoykova,13 G. Sultanov,13 V. Tcholakov,13 M. Vutova,13 A. Dimitrov,14 I. Glushkov,14 R. Hadjiiska,14 V. Kozhuharov,14 L. Litov,14 B. Pavlov,14 P. Petkov,14 J. G. Bian,15 G. M. Chen,15 H. S. Chen,15 M. Chen,15 R. Du,15 C. H. Jiang,15 R. Plestina,15,h J. Tao,15 Z. Wang,15 C. Asawatangtrakuldee,16 Y. Ban,16 Q. Li,16 S. Liu,16 Y. Mao,16 S. J. Qian,16 D. Wang,16 W. Zou,16 C. Avila,17 L. F. Chaparro Sierra,17 C. Florez,17 J. P. Gomez,17 B. Gomez Moreno,17 J. C. Sanabria,17 N. Godinovic,18 D. Lelas,18 D. Polic,18 I. Puljak,18 Z. Antunovic,19 M. Kovac,19 V. Brigljevic,20 K. Kadija,20 J. Luetic,20 D. Mekterovic,20 L. Sudic,20 A. Attikis,21 G. Mavromanolakis,21 J. Mousa,21 C. Nicolaou,21 F. Ptochos,21 P. A. Razis,21 M. Bodlak,22 M. Finger,22 M. Finger Jr.,22,i Y. Assran,23,j A. Ellithi Kamel,23,k M. A. Mahmoud,23,l A. Radi,23,m,n M. Kadastik,24 M. Murumaa,24 M. Raidal,24 A. Tiko,24 P. Eerola,25 G. Fedi,25 M. Voutilainen,25 J. Härkönen,26 V. Karimäki,26 R. Kinnunen,26 M. J. Kortelainen,26 T. Lampén,26 K. Lassila-Perini,26 S. Lehti,26 T. Lindén,26 P. Luukka,26 T. Mäenpää,26 T. Peltola,26 E. Tuominen,26 J. Tuominiemi,26 E. Tuovinen,26 L. Wendland,26 J. Talvitie,27 T. Tuuva,27 M. Besancon,28 F. Couderc,28 M. Dejardin,28 D. Denegri,28 B. Fabbro,28 J. L. Faure,28 C. Favaro,28 F. Ferri,28 S. Ganjour,28 A. Givernaud,28 P. Gras,28 G. Hamel de Monchenault,28 P. Jarry,28 E. Locci,28 J. Malcles,28 J. Rander,28 A. Rosowsky,28 M. Titov,28 S. Baffioni,29 F. Beaudette,29 P. Busson,29 C. Charlot,29 T. Dahms,29 M. Dalchenko,29 L. Dobrzynski,29 N. Filipovic,29 A. Florent,29 R. Granier de Cassagnac,29 L. Mastrolorenzo,29 P. Miné,29 C. Mironov,29 I. N. Naranjo,29 M. Nguyen,29 C. Ochando,29 P. Paganini,29 S. Regnard,29 R. Salerno,29 J. B. Sauvan,29 Y. Sirois,29 C. Veelken,29 Y. Yilmaz,29 A. Zabi,29 J.-L. Agram,30,o J. Andrea,30 A. Aubin,30 D. Bloch,30 J.-M. Brom,30 E. C. Chabert,30 C. Collard,30 E. Conte,30,o J.-C. Fontaine,30,o D. Gelé,30 U. Goerlach,30 C. Goetzmann,30 A.-C. Le Bihan,30 P. Van Hove,30 S. Gadrat,31 S. Beauceron,32 N. Beaupere,32 G. Boudoul,32,c E. Bouvier,32 S. Brochet,32 C. A. Carrillo Montoya,32 J. Chasserat,32 R. Chierici,32 D. Contardo,32,c P. Depasse,32 H. El Mamouni,32 J. Fan,32 J. Fay,32 S. Gascon,32 M. Gouzevitch,32 B. Ille,32 T. Kurca,32 M. Lethuillier,32 L. Mirabito,32 S. Perries,32 J. D. Ruiz Alvarez,32 D. Sabes,32 L. Sgandurra,32 V. Sordini,32 M. Vander Donckt,32 P. Verdier,32 S. Viret,32 H. Xiao,32 Z. Tsamalaidze,33,i C. Autermann,34 S. Beranek,34 M. Bontenackels,34 M. Edelhoff,34 L. Feld,34 V. KHACHATRYAN et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(82)90623-2 O. Hindrichs,34 K. Klein,34 A. Ostapchuk,34 A. Perieanu,34 F. Raupach,34 J. Sammet,34 S. Schael,34 H. Weber,34 B. Wittmer,34 V. Zhukov,34,f M. Ata,35 M. Brodski,35 E. Dietz-Laursonn,35 D. Duchardt,35 M. Erdmann,35 R. Fischer,35 A. Güth,35 T. Hebbeker,35 C. Heidemann,35 K. Hoepfner,35 D. Klingebiel,35 S. Knutzen,35 P. Kreuzer,35 M. Merschmeyer,35 A. Meyer,35 P. Millet,35 M. Olschewski,35 K. Padeken,35 P. Papacz,35 H. Reithler,35 S. A. Schmitz,35 L. Sonnenschein,35 D. Teyssier,35 S. Thüer,35 M. Weber,35 V. Cherepanov,36 Y. Erdogan,36 G. Flügge,36 H. Geenen,36 M. Geisler,36 W. Haj Ahmad,36 A. Heister,36 F. Hoehle,36 B. Kargoll,36 T. Kress,36 Y. Kuessel,36 A. Künsken,36 J. Lingemann,36,c A. Nowack,36 I. M. Nugent,36 L. Perchalla,36 O. Pooth,36 A. Stahl,36 I. Asin,37 N. Bartosik,37 J. Behr,37 W. Behrenhoff,37 U. Behrens,37 A. J. Bell,37 M. Bergholz,37,p A. Bethani,37 K. Borras,37 A. Burgmeier,37 A. Cakir,37 L. Calligaris,37 A. Campbell,37 S. Choudhury,37 F. Costanza,37 C. Diez Pardos,37 S. Dooling,37 T. Dorland,37 G. Eckerlin,37 D. Eckstein,37 T. Eichhorn,37 G. Flucke,37 J. Garay Garcia,37 A. Geiser,37 P. Gunnellini,37 J. Hauk,37 M. Hempel,37,p D. Horton,37 H. Jung,37 A. Kalogeropoulos,37 M. Kasemann,37 P. Katsas,37 J. Kieseler,37 C. Kleinwort,37 D. Krücker,37 W. Lange,37 J. Leonard,37 K. Lipka,37 A. Lobanov,37 W. Lohmann,37,p B. Lutz,37 R. Mankel,37 I. Marfin,37,p I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann,37 A. B. Meyer,37 G. Mittag,37 J. Mnich,37 A. Mussgiller,37 S. Naumann-Emme,37 A. Nayak,37 O. Novgorodova,37 E. Ntomari,37 H. Perrey,37 D. Pitzl,37 R. Placakyte,37 A. Raspereza,37 P. M. Ribeiro Cipriano,37 B. Roland,37 E. Ron,37 M. Ö. Sahin,37 J. Salfeld-Nebgen,37 P. Saxena,37 R. Schmidt,37,p T. Schoerner-Sadenius,37 M. Schröder,37 C. Seitz,37 S. Spannagel,37 A. D. R. Vargas Trevino,37 R. Walsh,37 C. Wissing,37 M. Aldaya Martin,38 V. Blobel,38 M. Centis Vignali,38 A. R. Draeger,38 J. Erfle,38 E. Garutti,38 K. Goebel,38 M. Görner,38 J. Haller,38 M. Hoffmann,38 R. S. Höing,38 H. Kirschenmann,38 R. Klanner,38 R. Kogler,38 J. Lange,38 T. Lapsien,38 T. Lenz,38 I. Marchesini,38 J. Ott,38 T. Peiffer,38 N. Pietsch,38 J. Poehlsen,38 T. Poehlsen,38 D. Rathjens,38 C. Sander,38 H. Schettler,38 P. Schleper,38 E. Schlieckau,38 A. Schmidt,38 M. Seidel,38 V. Sola,38 H. Stadie,38 G. Steinbrück,38 D. Troendle,38 E. Usai,38 L. Vanelderen,38 A. Vanhoefer,38 C. Barth,39 C. Baus,39 J. Berger,39 C. Böser,39 E. Butz,39 T. Chwalek,39 W. De Boer,39 A. Descroix,39 A. Dierlamm,39 M. Feindt,39 F. Frensch,39 M. Giffels,39 F. Hartmann,39,c T. Hauth,39,c U. Husemann,39 I. Katkov,39,f A. Kornmayer,39,c E. Kuznetsova,39 P. Lobelle Pardo,39 M. U. Mozer,39 Th. Müller,39 A. Nürnberg,39 G. Quast,39 K. Rabbertz,39 F. Ratnikov,39 S. Röcker,39 H. J. Simonis,39 F. M. Stober,39 R. Ulrich,39 J. Wagner-Kuhr,39 S. Wayand,39 T. Weiler,39 R. Wolf,39 G. Anagnostou,40 G. Daskalakis,40 T. Geralis,40 V. A. Giakoumopoulou,40 A. Kyriakis,40 D. Loukas,40 A. Markou,40 C. Markou,40 A. Psallidas,40 I. Topsis-Giotis,40 A. Agapitos,41 S. Kesisoglou,41 A. Panagiotou,41 N. Saoulidou,41 E. Stiliaris,41 X. Aslanoglou,42 I. Evangelou,42 G. Flouris,42 C. Foudas,42 P. Kokkas,42 N. Manthos,42 I. Papadopoulos,42 E. Paradas,42 G. Bencze,43 C. Hajdu,43 P. Hidas,43 D. Horvath,43,q F. Sikler,43 V. Veszpremi,43 G. Vesztergombi,43,r A. J. Zsigmond,43 N. Beni,44 S. Czellar,44 J. Karancsi,44,s J. Molnar,44 J. Palinkas,44 Z. Szillasi,44 P. Raics,45 Z. L. Trocsanyi,45 B. Ujvari,45 S. K. Swain,46 S. B. Beri,47 V. Bhatnagar,47 R. Gupta,47 U. Bhawandeep,47 A. K. Kalsi,47 M. Kaur,47 R. Kumar,47 M. Mittal,47 N. Nishu,47 J. B. Singh,47 Ashok Kumar,48 Arun Kumar,48 S. Ahuja,48 A. Bhardwaj,48 B. C. Choudhary,48 A. Kumar,48 S. Malhotra,48 M. Naimuddin,48 K. Ranjan,48 V. Sharma,48 S. Banerjee,49 S. Bhattacharya,49 K. Chatterjee,49 S. Dutta,49 B. Gomber,49 Sa. Jain,49 Sh. Jain,49 R. Khurana,49 A. Modak,49 S. Mukherjee,49 D. Roy,49 S. Sarkar,49 M. Sharan,49 A. Abdulsalam,50 D. Dutta,50 S. Kailas,50 V. Kumar,50 A. K. Mohanty,50,c L. M. Pant,50 P. Shukla,50 A. Topkar,50 T. Aziz,51 S. Banerjee,51 S. Bhowmik,51,t R. M. Chatterjee,51 R. K. Dewanjee,51 S. Dugad,51 S. Ganguly,51 S. Ghosh,51 M. Guchait,51 A. Gurtu,51,u G. Kole,51 S. Kumar,51 M. Maity,51,t G. Majumder,51 K. Mazumdar,51 G. B. Mohanty,51 B. Parida,51 K. Sudhakar,51 N. Wickramage,51,v H. Bakhshiansohi,52 H. Behnamian,52 S. M. Etesami,52,w A. Fahim,52,x R. Goldouzian,52 M. Khakzad,52 M. Mohammadi Najafabadi,52 M. Naseri,52 S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi,52 F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi,52 B. Safarzadeh,52,y M. Zeinali,52 M. Felcini,53 M. Grunewald,53 M. Abbrescia,54a,54b L. Barbone,54a,54b C. Calabria,54a,54b S. S. Chhibra,54a,54b A. Colaleo,54a D. Creanza,54a,54c N. De Filippis,54a,54c M. De Palma,54a,54b L. Fiore,54a G. Iaselli,54a,54c G. Maggi,54a,54c M. Maggi,54a S. My,54a,54c S. Nuzzo,54a,54b A. Pompili,54a,54b G. Pugliese,54a,54c R. Radogna,54a,54b,c G. Selvaggi,54a,54b L. Silvestris,54a,c G. Singh,54a,54b R. Venditti,54a,54b G. Zito,54a G. Abbiendi,55a A. C. Benvenuti,55a D. Bonacorsi,55a,55b S. Braibant-Giacomelli,55a,55b L. Brigliadori,55a,55b R. Campanini,55a,55b P. Capiluppi,55a,55b A. Castro,55a,55b F. R. Cavallo,55a G. Codispoti,55a,55b M. Cuffiani,55a,55b G. M. Dallavalle,55a F. Fabbri,55a A. Fanfani,55a,55b D. Fasanella,55a,55b P. Giacomelli,55a C. Grandi,55a L. Guiducci,55a,55b S. Marcellini,55a G. Masetti,55a A. Montanari,55a F. L. Navarria,55a,55b A. Perrotta,55a F. Primavera,55a,55b A. M. Rossi,55a,55b T. Rovelli,55a,55b G. P. Siroli,55a,55b N. Tosi,55a,55b R. Travaglini,55a,55b S. Albergo,56a,56b G. Cappello,56a M. Chiorboli,56a,56b S. Costa,56a,56b F. Giordano,56a,c R. Potenza,56a,56b A. Tricomi,56a,56b C. Tuve,56a,56b G. Barbagli,57a V. Ciulli,57a,57b C. Civinini,57a R. D’Alessandro,57a,57b E. Focardi,57a,57b E. Gallo,57a S. Gonzi,57a,57b V. Gori,57a,57b,c P. Lenzi,57a,57b MEASUREMENT OF DIFFRACTIVE DISSOCIATION CROSS … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 92, 012003 (2015) 012003-23 M. Meschini,57a S. Paoletti,57a G. Sguazzoni,57a A. Tropiano,57a,57b L. Benussi,58 S. Bianco,58 F. Fabbri,58 D. Piccolo,58 R. Ferretti,59a,59b F. Ferro,59a M. Lo Vetere,59a,59b E. Robutti,59a S. Tosi,59a,59b M. E. Dinardo,60a,60b S. Fiorendi,60a,60b,c S. Gennai,60a,c R. Gerosa,60a,60b,c A. Ghezzi,60a,60b P. Govoni,60a,60b M. T. Lucchini,60a,60b,c S. Malvezzi,60a R. A. Manzoni,60a,60b A. Martelli,60a,60b B. Marzocchi,60a,60b D. Menasce,60a L. Moroni,60a M. Paganoni,60a,60b D. Pedrini,60a S. Ragazzi,60a,60b N. Redaelli,60a T. Tabarelli de Fatis,60a,60b S. Buontempo,61a N. Cavallo,61a,61c S. Di Guida,61a,61d,c F. Fabozzi,61a,61c A. O. M. Iorio,61a,61b L. Lista,61a S. Meola,61a,61d,c M. Merola,61a P. Paolucci,61a,c P. Azzi,62a N. Bacchetta,62a D. Bisello,62a,62b A. Branca,62a,62b M. Dall’Osso,62a,62b T. Dorigo,62a M. Galanti,62a,62b F. Gasparini,62a,62b P. Giubilato,62a,62b A. Gozzelino,62a K. Kanishchev,62a,62c S. Lacaprara,62a M. Margoni,62a,62b A. T. Meneguzzo,62a,62b F. Montecassiano,62a M. Passaseo,62a J. Pazzini,62a,62b M. Pegoraro,62a N. Pozzobon,62a,62b P. Ronchese,62a,62b F. Simonetto,62a,62b E. Torassa,62a M. Tosi,62a,62b A. Triossi,62a P. Zotto,62a,62b A. Zucchetta,62a,62b G. Zumerle,62a,62b M. Gabusi,63a,63b S. P. Ratti,63a,63b V. Re,63a C. Riccardi,63a,63b P. Salvini,63a P. Vitulo,63a,63b M. Biasini,64a,64b G. M. Bilei,64a D. Ciangottini,64a,64b L. Fanò,64a,64b P. Lariccia,64a,64b G. Mantovani,64a,64b M. Menichelli,64a F. Romeo,64a,64b A. Saha,64a A. Santocchia,64a,64b A. Spiezia,64a,64b,c K. Androsov,65a,z P. Azzurri,65a G. Bagliesi,65a J. Bernardini,65a T. Boccali,65a G. Broccolo,65a,65c R. Castaldi,65a M. A. Ciocci,65a,z R. Dell’Orso,65a S. Donato,65a,65c F. Fiori,65a,65c L. Foà,65a,65c A. Giassi,65a M. T. Grippo,65a,z F. Ligabue,65a,65c T. Lomtadze,65a L. Martini,65a,65b A. Messineo,65a,65b C. S. Moon,65a,aa F. Palla,65a,c A. Rizzi,65a,65b A. Savoy-Navarro,65a,bb A. T. Serban,65a P. Spagnolo,65a P. Squillacioti,65a,z R. Tenchini,65a G. Tonelli,65a,65b A. Venturi,65a P. G. Verdini,65a C. Vernieri,65a,65c,c L. Barone,66a,66b F. Cavallari,66a G. D’imperio,66a,66b D. Del Re,66a,66b M. Diemoz,66a M. Grassi,66a,66b C. Jorda,66a E. Longo,66a,66b F. Margaroli,66a,66b P. Meridiani,66a F. Micheli,66a,66b,c S. Nourbakhsh,66a,66b G. Organtini,66a,66b R. Paramatti,66a S. Rahatlou,66a,66b C. Rovelli,66a F. Santanastasio,66a,66b L. Soffi,66a,66b,c P. Traczyk,66a,66b N. Amap