1 / 28

p 0 A LL analysis in PHENIX

p 0 A LL analysis in PHENIX. K. Tanida (RIKEN/RBRC) RSC meeting 11/18/03. Outline Relative luminosity - estimation of systematic error - A LL in ZDC/BBC LocalPol Counting number of p 0 ’ s Result. A LL. ++ same helicity + opposite helicity. ( P) Polarization

avon
Télécharger la présentation

p 0 A LL analysis in PHENIX

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. p0 ALL analysis in PHENIX K. Tanida (RIKEN/RBRC)RSC meeting 11/18/03 Outline • Relative luminosity- estimation of systematic error- ALL in ZDC/BBC • LocalPol • Counting number of p0’s • Result

  2. ALL ++ same helicity + opposite helicity (P) Polarization (L) Relative Luminosity (N) Number of pi0s

  3. How to get relative luminosity? • Principle: R=N++/N+- -- from any counter (trigger) • BBCLL1 trigger- coincidence of two Beam-Beam Counters- small background (~ 10-4)- high statistics (detects ~ 1/2 of all collisions)- ALLBBC: expected to be small, need confirmation BBC-South BBC-North ⊿η = 3.0 ~ 3.9 ⊿φ = 2π 144.35 cm

  4. Method of accuracy estimation • Cross-check by ZDCLL1 trigger (Zero Degree Calorimeter) - low background (~ 10-4) - statistics: moderate (~ 3% of BBCLL1) • N(ZDCLL1)/N(BBCLL1) must be constant • Crossing-by-crossing, fill-by-fill ratio calculationBlue:+ - + - + - + -....Yellow:+ + - - + + - -.... We have all spin combinations in each fill • GL1p scaler counts both BBCLL1 and ZDCLL1for each crossing • Required accuracy: constant to 10-3 level for each fill.

  5. crossing-by-crossing ratio c2/dof = 346/45 Significant deviation from constant. Why?

  6. Possible explanation – detector acceptance run 87693 • Extreme cases - Flat acceptance N: area - Narrow acceptance  N: height crossing 74 counts crossing 90 BBC Z vertex (cm) • ZDCLL1: Z-vertex resolution ~ 20 cm (wider acceptance) • BBCLL1: ~ 5 cm (narrower) (both have Z-vertex cut at ±30 cm)

  7. Correlation with Z-vertex width c2/dof = 55.1/45 [cm] Z-vertex width [cm] We understand the reason now  correction

  8. After correction c2/dof = 54.8/45 Relative luminosity accuracy < 0.09% (stat. limited)

  9. Alternative correction • Actual vertex width is not yet available in most runs(will come soon) • Alternative width estimation use ZDCout/ZDCin ratio - ZDCin: ZDCLL1 counts with Z-vertex cut of 30 cm - ZDCout: ZDCLL1 outside of ZDCin. (both are counted crossing-by-crossing) wider vertex distribution  larger ratio

  10. Actual accuracy estimation-- Bunch fitting • Crossing-by-crossing analysis, taking care of possibleeffect of ALL in BBC and ZDC • For i-th crossing, calculater(i) = NZDCLL1(i)/NBBCLL1(i)corrected for vertex width • Fit r(i) byr(i) = C[1+ALLBBC/ZDCPB(i)PY(i)]fit parameter: C, ALLBBC/ZDC • You will get C, ALLBBC/ZDC, their errors, and c2- accuracy is obtained as dALLBBC/ZDC(x PBPY)- c2 gives a good check for systematic errors.

  11. c2 vs stat. error – before correction 1 point/fill w/o vertex width correction correlating  ssyst ~ 0.002 c2/dof = 1+(ssyst/sstat)2ssyst = 0.002 c2/dof statistical error (deLL, sstat)

  12. c2 vs stat. error – after correction fill 3735 correlation is weak, but still some systematic effect remains bad fill c2/dof = 1+(ssyst/sstat)2ssyst = 0.001 c2/dof statistical error (dALL, sstat)

  13. Result & BBC/ZDC ALL • Systematic error seen  c2 correction required • If c2/dof is larger than 1, then enlarge statistical error by sqrt(c2/dof) – conservative correction • Averaged result: ALLBBC/ZDC =(1.8±1.8) x 10-3(without vertex width correction, dALL is ~2 larger) • This corresponds to relative luminosity accuracy ofdR = 2.5 x 10-4 Achieved the goal • ZDC-BBC ALL is 0 consistent we can use both for reference of ALL = 0

  14. Some notes • We reached dALLBBC/ZDC=1.8 x 10-3- this is dominated by statistics of ZDC, so it’s rather conservative estimation- actual relative luminosity is given by BBC • In p0 analysis, vertex position dependence of acceptance is the same as BBCLL1 because- BBC hits are required in the analysis- PHENIX central arm acceptance is almost flat for p0 within the region we are using (±30 cm)

  15. Remaining tasks for rel. luminosity • Apply offline Z-vertex cut - better resolution: ~ 5 cm  ~ 2 cm (effect is found to be small) • Full accuracy estimation using real vertex distribution. - correction for other than vertex width? • Study effect of multiple collisions - negligible in Run3, significant for higher luminosity. • Z-vertex dependence of acceptance (efficiency)for BBCLL1, p0 and other reaction channels. - reaction channel specific relative luminosity. - BBCLL1 itself is almost perfect for p0 case, but may be not for other channels.

  16. Vertex distribution (BBCLL1) reject reject counts accept offline Zvertex [cm] changes rel. lumi. by < 0.04% per fill (negligible)

  17. PHENIX Local Polarimeter • Forward neutron transverse asymmetry (AN) measurements • SMD (position) + ZDC (energy) f distribution SMD Vertical  f ~ ±p/2 Radial  f ~ 0 Longitudinal  no asymmetry ZDC

  18. Spin Longitudinal Component ST is measured with PHENIX Local Polarimeter Left-Right asymmetry Up-Down asymmetry

  19. p0 counting • Data collected with high pT photon trigger • Based on EMCal; Threshold ~1.4 GeV/c • Rejection factor ~110 • Analyzed data sample:42.7M events (~0.215 pb-1) • sqrt(<PbPy>)~26% • Minimum Bias data • To obtain “unbiased” 0 cross section at low pT • For high pT photon trigger efficiency study

  20. p0 reconstruction for ALL 1-2 GeV/c Bckgr=45% 2-3 GeV/c Bckgr=17% Results obtained for four pt bins from 1 to 5 GeV/c Pi0 peak width varies from 12 to 9.5 MeV/c2 from lowest to highest pt bins Background contribution under pi0 peak for 25 MeV/c2 mass cut varies from 45% to 5% from lowest to highest pt bins 3-4 GeV/c Bckgr=7% 4-5 GeV/c Bckgr=5%

  21. p0 counting for ALL • N0: • 25 MeV/c2 around 0 peak (and also 15 and 35 MeV/c2 for cross checks) • Nbck1: • Two 50 MeV/c2 wide areas adjacent to 0 peak • Nbck2: • 250 MeV/c2 wide area between 0 and peaks N0 and Nbck accumulated statistics

  22. N0statistical error estimation dk/dNev dk/dNev N0 Nbck2 • In multi-0 events: • Comparison to naïve approach: Fluctuation enhancement (squared) due to multi-particle events

  23. ALL measurements ++ same helicity + opposite helicity • Procedure • Collect N and L for ++ and + configurations (sum over all crossings) and calculate ALL for each fill • Average ALL over fills; use 2/NDF to control fit quality; use “bunch shuffling” to check syst. errors

  24. ALL Calculations ALL averaged over fills 1-2 GeV/c 2-3 GeV/c • 1-2 GeV/c • ALL= -2.8%±1.2% • 2/ndf = 64/48 • 2-3 GeV/c • ALL= -2.2%±1.5% • 2/ndf = 34/48 • 3-4 GeV/c • ALL= -0.2%±3.3% • 2/ndf = 49/48 • 4-5 GeV/c • ALL= -2.3%±7.4% • 2/ndf = 39/48 4-5 GeV/c 3-4 GeV/c

  25. AL check for “yellow” beam All are zeros within 1.5

  26. AL check for “blue” beam All are zeros within 1.5, except

  27. 0ALL result Polarization scaling error P ~30%: is not included • Enters the ALL quadratically • Analyzing power AN(100 GeV) ~ AN(22GeV) is assumed • P~30%: combined stat. and syst. error for AN(22GeV) (AGS E950) pT smearing correction is not included

  28. Summary • Relative luminosity – systematics is mostly due tocrossing by crossing variation of Z-vertex width and acceptance difference correction applied • Relative luminosity accuracydALL = 1.8 x 10-3 achieved • Relative luminosity is reaction channel dependent - For p0 analysis, BBCLL1 is good enough. • Preliminary result for p0 ALL obtained • Various null tests – all OK statistical and systematic errors are well studied.

More Related