English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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

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