1: \chapter{Data Analysis}\label{sec:ch4}
2:
3: This chapter describes the analysis procedure used to extract and
4: isolate the electron sample from heavy flavor semi-leptonic
5: decays. Section~\ref{sec:ch4.QA} describes the quality control, run and
6: event selection used in the analysis. Electron identification
7: cuts and their optimization is presented in Section
8: \ref{sec:ch4.eIDCuts}. Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Inclusive} explains the
9: inclusive electron invariant crossection calculation. The estimation
10: of the electron component from "photon" related decays of light mesons
11: ("photonic" electron component) through the EXODUS Cocktail is
12: summarized in Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Cocktail}. The final results for
13: "non-photonic" electron crossection subtraction are presented in
14: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Subtraction}. In order to crosscheck the results
15: of "non-photonic" electron component measurement, the independent
16: "Converter subtraction" analysis was performed which is described in
17: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Converter}. Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Systematics}
18: presents the Systematic Error estimations for inclusive electron
19: crossection, Cocktail prediction and the subtracted "non-photonic"
20: electron crossection.
21:
22: \section{Quality Assurance and run selection}\label{sec:ch4.QA}
23:
24: The accurate run selection is essential for high precision
25: measurement of Open Charm decay electron component. The
26: contribution of "photonic" electron background is on the order of
27: 80\% at low $p_{T}$ of total electron signal and even a small
28: variation of total electron yield can cause a significant variation
29: in the background-subtracted result.
30:
31: The other complication for the electron analysis is that we need
32: to be certain that we have uniform distribution of material in the
33: acceptance. Any additional piece of equipment in the acceptance
34: can cause a significant increase to creation of conversion
35: electrons. Thus we need to apply an elaborate acceptance cuts in
36: order to make a conversion rate uniform in the acceptance.
37:
38: \subsection{Acceptance cuts}\label{sec:ch4.acc_cuts}
39:
40: The acceptance for the electrons in PHENIX is best represented in
41: terms of the track inclination angle $\alpha$ and the azimuthal angle
42: $\phi$. The transverse momentum of the particle is inversely
43: proportional to $\alpha$ and can be approximated to the first
44: order as $p_{T} \approx \frac{0.086}{\alpha}$ GeV/c.
45:
46: The Drift Chamber performance in the East arm was much more stable
47: then that of the West arm and for this analysis we decided to use
48: only the East arm acceptance. Applying very loose electron ID cuts
49: ($ n0 > 1$, $|d_{EMC}| < 5$ ) we can plot the density of the
50: electron candidates in $\alpha$ vs. $\phi$ space.
51: Fig~\ref{fig:ch4.alpha_phi} shows the electron acceptance of the
52: East arm. One can see that big portion of acceptance is "shadowed"
53: by conversions from Time Zero counter (TZR). This detector was
54: installed into the PHENIX acceptance about 60 cm from the
55: interaction point in order to improve the measurement of "start"
56: time for the Time-of-Flight detector. Unfortunately due to very
57: large radiation length of TZR counter ($X_{TZR} \approx 5.0 \%$!!)
58: it creates a very large rate of conversions far from vertex that
59: creates a huge conversion background in the region of its shadow.
60: \footnote{Since the TZR detector debacle, any new detector placed
61: in the PHENIX aperture has been required to submit a ``detector
62: impact statement'' prior to its inclusion in our apparatus.} The
63: region effected by the TZR counter is removed by the fiducial cut
64: shown in the acceptance plot. Stripes on this figure depict
65: acceptance holes for various PHENIX detectors. There is also a
66: small portion of acceptance (circled on the plot) affected by
67: conversions from cable tray of the ``New Trigger Counter'' NTC
68: detector, it is also removed by fiducial cut\footnote{The NTC also
69: failed to pass its ``detector impact study'' and is removed.
70: Neither the NTC nor the TZR were ever used to produce a physics
71: result in PHENIX.}. The small acceptance region at $\phi
72: > 3.2$ rad that is not affected by TZR "shadow" does not contain
73: high momentum electrons which are of particular interest for Open
74: Charm electron measurements. That is why analysis is using only
75: EMC PbSc sectors E2, E3.
76:
77: \begin{figure}[vht]
78: \begin{center}
79: \epsfig{figure=./4/alpha_phi.eps,width=5.in}
80: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.alpha_phi} Density of the electrons in
81: $\alpha$ vs. $\phi$ space for East Arm. The area indicated by red
82: arrows is the acceptance region used in the analysis. The various
83: acceptance holes and additional photon conversion "shadows"
84: indicated on the plot.}
85: \end{center}
86: \end{figure}
87:
88: Non-uniform conversion rate acceptance cuts are listed below:
89: \begin{itemize}
90: \item $|\phi+ 0.85\cdot\alpha| < 2.68;$ TZR counter cut
91:
92: \item $|\phi+ 0.85\cdot\alpha| > 1.95;$ NTC cable tray
93: shadow
94:
95: \item E2,E3; EMC sector cut
96: \end{itemize}
97: \pagebreak
98:
99: The additional holes in the acceptance of the detector
100: were studied starting from those closest to the interaction point
101: ({\it i.e.} the DCH). Due to the bending of the track in the
102: magnetic field, the azimuthal angle $\phi'$ at which track
103: intercepts each detector component of the PHENIX will be shifted
104: with respect to DCH $\phi$, which is calculated at the "reference
105: radius" $R_{ref} = 220$ cm. The shift is proportional to $\alpha$
106: and is negative for interception with radius $R > R_{ref}$ and is
107: positive otherwise. $\phi_{X1} = \phi +0.06\cdot\alpha$
108: corresponds to track angle in X1 DCH plane, $\phi_{X2} = \phi
109: -0.04\cdot\alpha$ corresponds to track intersection of X2 DCH
110: plane. By plotting track density in $\phi_{X1}$, $\phi_{X2}$
111: coordinates we can clearly identify the dead DCH regions.
112:
113: The same analysis can be performed for the Pad Chamber (PC1) dead
114: regions. $\phi_{PC}$ can be approximated as $\phi_{PC} = \phi
115: -0.13\cdot\alpha$. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.zed_phipc} shows the track
116: density in $\phi_{PC}$, $Z$ space. There is a PC1 region of
117: unstable performance that was cut-out.
118:
119: \begin{figure}[ht]
120: \begin{center}
121: \epsfig{figure=./4/zed_phipc.eps,width=4.in}
122: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.zed_phipc} Density of the electrons in $Z$
123: vs. $\phi_{PC}$ space.}
124: \end{center}
125: \end{figure}
126:
127: Final list of tracking fiducial cuts is summarized below:
128:
129: \begin{itemize}
130: \item $Not(|\phi+ 0.06\cdot\alpha -2.562 | < 0.005 \;\& \;(Z<0))$
131: DCH dead region
132:
133: \item $Not(|\phi- 0.13\cdot\alpha -2.365 | < 0.025 \;\& \;(Z<0))$
134: PC1 dead region
135:
136: \item $Not(|\phi- 0.13\cdot\alpha -2.325 | < 0.025\;\& \;(Z<0)\;
137: \&\; (Z> -15))$ PC1 dead region
138: \end{itemize}
139:
140: EMC dead area was calculated by photon density measurements in
141: each EMC tower on a run-by-run basis~\cite{ana143,pp_pi0}. The
142: final dead/noise map used in the analysis included all the towers
143: that had a dead/noise flag set at least in one run. 3x3 tower
144: region around the "bad" tower was fiducially removed in order to
145: have more precise energy measurement in the vicinity of the "bad"
146: tower. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.dead_emc} shows the map of the dead
147: towers in EMC that were removed from the analysis.\\
148:
149: \begin{figure}[vht]
150: \begin{center}
151: \epsfig{figure=./4/dead_emc.eps,width=4.in}
152: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.dead_emc} Dead/noisy EMC tower map for E2,
153: E3 EMC sectors.}
154: \end{center}
155: \end{figure}
156:
157: \subsection{Event selection}
158:
159: The ``Minimum Bias'' event trigger in Run02 P+P was based on the
160: coincidence of at least one hit each in the North and South
161: Beam-Beam Counters (BBC). In order to keep up with high luminosity
162: and to keep the constant bandwidth for Data Acquisition System, a
163: trigger $\it{prescale}$ logic was implemented. The live trigger
164: rate was artificially reduced by only storing each one event out
165: of $R_{scale}$. $R_{scale}$ is called trigger prescale factor
166: which depended on RHIC store luminosity and could be set to four
167: possible values of 10, 20, 40, 80. The Minimum Bias trigger was
168: always prescaled. \pagebreak
169:
170: In order to increase the rate of
171: events containing energetic electron, \linebreak PHENIX uses
172: special Level-1 electronics trigger called the ERT (EMC-RICH
173: trigger). The basic principle of the trigger lies in the online
174: summing of the energy signals in the EMC over a 2x2 tower region
175: called a tile. If the signal from particular tile exceeds the
176: tunable threshold value the specific bit is set in the data
177: stream. To avoid edge effects, the tiles are overlapped and with
178: 2x2 summing the number of tiles equals the number of towers. The
179: other bit is set once a RICH tile (4x5 tubes, overlapping) have a
180: signal exceeding threshold. A spatial match between emc and rich
181: tiles is an indication that the high momentum electron may have
182: been detected in the particular region of detector.\footnote{low
183: momentum particles have displaced RICH and EMC tiles and fail the
184: trigger.} The trigger electronics issues the Local Level 1 (LL1)
185: trigger decision for the PHENIX Global Level 1 system (GL1). The
186: energy threshold of the ERT trigger can be adjusted by the
187: threshold settings and was set to have a 50\% registration
188: probability for 800 MeV electron. The efficiency of the ERT
189: trigger is discussed in more details in
190: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Inclusive}. The same electronics can be used
191: to fire on high energy photons by skipping the coincidence of the
192: RICH bit. This trigger called "Gamma1" was successfully used for
193: high momentum $\pi^0$ measurements~\cite{pp_pi0,ana224}. The ERT
194: trigger has a significant rejection power (the rate of the
195: triggered events compared to Minimum Bias rate) $R_{ERT} \approx
196: 40-50$, does not limit the DAQ bandwidth, and requires no prescale
197: factor. The proper normalization of the ERT trigger data should be
198: done to the total number of $\it{live}$ Minimum Bias triggers
199: corresponding to the particular Run. It is crucial to $\bold{not}$
200: use the number of ERT trigger events for normalization as any
201: noisy channel can artificially increase the rate of this trigger
202: and a strong bias would be applied to the results.
203:
204: The collision vertex is measured by the Beam-Beam Counters (see
205: Section ~\ref{sec:ch3.BBC}). The vertex resolution in $\pp$ Run02
206: was $\delta_{Z_{vtx}} = 1.2$ cm. Due to the specific geometry of
207: PHENIX, the tracks originating from collisions that are far from
208: the center of the detector ($Z_{vtx}=0$ cm) have a higher
209: probability to interact with the material of the Central Magnet
210: thus creating additional conversion electron background. The
211: collision vertex distribution for the particles that are primarily
212: electrons (tight eID cut $n0 >3$) is shown in
213: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.bbcz}. One can see that the vertex distribution
214: has an almost Gaussian shape with some additional structure for
215: high $Z_{vtx}$. In order to minimize the conversion background, we
216: use tight vertex cuts for this analysis and only look at the
217: events with $|Z_{vtx}| < 25$ cm.
218:
219: \begin{figure}[vht]
220: \begin{center}
221: \epsfig{figure=./4/bbcz.eps,width=3.5in}
222: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.bbcz} BBC $Z_{vtx}$ distribution for
223: electron candidates ($n0>3$). Bold line shows the vertex region
224: used in the analysis.}
225: \end{center}
226: \end{figure}
227:
228: \subsection{Run selection and event counting}
229:
230: To filter the bad runs we looked at the $\phi$ distribution
231: of all charged tracks ($p_{T} > 0.4$ GeV/c) with standard
232: electron identification cuts (except for RICH $n0>1$ cut,see
233: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.eIDCuts}) and all acceptance cuts. The
234: $\frac{dN}{d\phi}$ distribution for each run was normalized to the
235: number of recorded Minimum Bias events $N_{MB}$. Then the ratio of
236: the $\frac{1}{N_{MB}}\frac{dN}{d\phi}$ distribution for given run
237: to the same distribution for the chosen "reference" run (run
238: having significant statistics and stable acceptance) was fitted
239: with a constant $R$. Any significant deviation of the fit
240: parameter $R$ from one is an indication of additional dead area in
241: the trial run. The criteria for the selection of the run was
242: chosen to be:
243: \begin{itemize}
244: \item $R > 0.94$ \item $\chi^2_{\nu} < 2.0$
245: \end{itemize}
246:
247: The run by run variation of $R$ and $\chi^2_{\nu}$ presented on
248: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.run_qa} (runs shown as red are considered to be
249: "bad"). During Run02 we had an period with additional "photon
250: converter" installed inside the PHENIX acceptance. "Converter"
251: subtraction method explained in details in
252: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Converter}. Converter run period should be
253: treated separately from Non-Converter run period. The total event
254: statistics of the Converter and Non-Converter run periods summarized in
255: Table~\ref{tab:runqatable}.
256:
257: \begin{figure}[]
258: \begin{center}
259: \epsfig{figure=./4/run_qa.eps,width=4.1in}
260: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.run_qa} Run-by-run variation of charged
261: particle yield.}
262: \end{center}
263: \end{figure}
264:
265: \begin{table}
266:
267: \caption{Statistics summary for Non-Converter and Converter run
268: period.}
269: \begin{center}
270: \begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|}
271:
272: \hline & $N_{MB}$ &$N_{MB\ live}$\\
273: \hline
274: Non-Converter "Total"& 15 931 737 & 475 849 920\\
275: Non-Converter "Bad"& 540 061 & 10 683 600\\
276: Non-Converter "Good"& $\bold{15\ 391\ 676}$ & $\bold{465\ 166\ 320}$\\
277: \hline
278: Converter "Total"& 4 851 787 & 264 284 240\\
279: Converter "Bad"& 361 847& 28 947 760\\
280: Converter "Good"& $\bold{4\ 489\ 940}$&$\bold{235\ 336\ 480}$\\
281: \hline
282:
283: \end{tabular}
284: \end{center}
285: \label{tab:runqatable}
286: \end{table}
287:
288: \newpage
289: \section{Electron identification cuts}\label{sec:ch4.eIDCuts}
290:
291: Electron identification is one of the most critical parts of the
292: analysis and required a precise tuning of the eID parameters.
293: PHENIX is able to identify the electrons using the following
294: parameters:
295: \begin{itemize}
296: \item Number of RICH photomultipliers that have hit within the
297: projected track ring - $n0$.
298: \item EMC matching - distance between
299: track projection and EMC cluster in $\phi$ and $Z$ coordinates. We
300: denote $d_{EMC}$ as $d_{EMC} = \sqrt{d\phi_{EMC}^2+dZ_{EMC}^2}$.
301: \item Ratio of EMC deposited energy to particle momentum - $E/p$.
302: \end{itemize}
303:
304: Those variables have been used for all the current PHENIX electron
305: results~\cite{jpsi,ppg011,ppg035}. All eID parameters were
306: adjusted both for Data and Monte Carlo simulation to be identical
307: and uniform (i.e. matching parameters have the mean value of zero
308: and width of $1\sigma$ independent of momentum and uniform
309: throughout the detector acceptance).
310:
311: \subsection{n0 cut optimization}
312:
313: The rejection power of separate eID cuts was tested by studying the
314: $E/p$ distribution of electron candidates before and after the cut.
315:
316: An initial assumption is chosen for the $n0$ cut. This cut can not be
317: set as low as one phototube since the random association background
318: due to electronics noise would be too high. Thus $n0>1$ was assumed to
319: be lowest possible $n0$ cut. The next step is to study what happens as
320: the cut is tightened. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.n0_cut} shows the effect of
321: $n0>2$ cut on the initial electron candidate sample ($n0>1$) for
322: $p_{T} > 0.4$. The bottom left inlet shows the rejection power of the
323: cut which shows the remaining portion of the particles after the
324: cut. One can see a distinctive peak in $E/p$ distribution which
325: defines "real" electrons. The tail at $E/p < 0.5$ consists principally
326: of random charged hadron tracks associated with real RICH hits and
327: off-vertex conversion electrons with mis-measured momentum. In order
328: to estimate the effectiveness of the eID cut we check how much signal
329: it removes in the $E/p$ electron peak region and how strongly it
330: cuts away the low $E/p$ background.
331:
332: \begin{figure}[t]
333: \begin{center}
334: \epsfig{figure=./4/n0_cut.eps,width=0.95\linewidth}
335: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.n0_cut} a) $E/p$ distribution for the
336: electron candidates for different n0 cuts b) Rejection power of
337: eID cut $n0>2$ in comparison with $n0>1$ cut.}
338:
339: \epsfig{figure=./4/emc_2sig.eps,width=0.3\linewidth,clip,trim =
340: 0.2in 0in 0.7in 0in}
341: \epsfig{figure=./4/emc_3sig.eps,width=0.3\linewidth,clip,trim =
342: 0.2in 0in 0.7in 0in}
343: \epsfig{figure=./4/emc_5sig.eps,width=0.3\linewidth,clip,trim =
344: 0.2in 0in 0.7in 0in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.demc_cut} $E/p$
345: distribution for the electron candidates and rejection power for
346: different $d_{EMC}$ cuts a) $d_{EMC} < 2\sigma$ b) $d_{EMC} <
347: 3\sigma$ c) $d_{EMC} < 5\sigma$.}
348: \end{center}
349: \end{figure}
350:
351: From the plot we can conclude that we lose $\approx 10\%$ of the
352: electron signal and $\approx 50 - 60 \%$ of the background. This
353: loss of the electron efficiency is too large to afford and the
354: rejection is not significantly high so we decided to use $n0>1$
355: cut for the analysis.
356:
357:
358:
359:
360:
361: \subsection{EMC matching cut optimization}
362:
363: The similar studies have been done on the "adjusted" track matching
364: $d_{EMC} = \sqrt{d\phi_{EMC}^2+dZ_{EMC}^2}$ parameter. $d_{EMC}$
365: variable cut has been tested for values of $d_{EMC}<2$, $d_{EMC}<3$,
366: and $d_{EMC}<5$. The resulting rejection power of is shown in
367: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.demc_cut}.
368:
369:
370: It is clear that $d_{EMC} < 3$ already cuts a big portion of low
371: $E/p$ electron candidates leaving the peak statistics almost
372: intact. The efficiency of a \linebreak $d_{EMC} < 2$ cut at the
373: peak is $\approx 80 \%$ which is a significant statistics loss.
374: Therefore, $d_{EMC} < 3$ was chosen as an optimum for the
375: analysis.
376:
377: \subsection{$E/p$ cut parametrization}
378:
379: We expect electrons to generate an electromagnetic shower in the EMC
380: and therefore register an energy equal to their momentum. The energy
381: over momentum distribution not only enables us to identify electrons
382: by also allows us to measure both the energy and momentum resolution.
383: The resolution of E/p can be directly derived from $\frac{\sigma
384: (p)}{p}$ and $\frac{\sigma (E)}{E}$ and can be written as:
385: \begin{eqnarray}
386: \frac{\sigma(p)}{p} &=& \sqrt{{\sigma}_{MS}^{2} + ({\sigma}_{DCH}\cdot
387: p)^{2}}\nonumber\\
388: \frac{\sigma(E)}{E} &=& \sqrt{{\sigma}_{C}^{2} +
389: (\frac{{\sigma}_{EMC}}{\sqrt{E}})^{2}}
390: \label{eq:ch4.resol}
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: \\ where $\sigma_{MS}$ is term due to the multiple scattering,
393: $(\sigma_{DCH} \cdot p)$ is DCH angular resolution, $\sigma_{C}$ is a
394: constant term of EMC energy resolution,
395: $\frac{\sigma_{EMC}}{\sqrt{E}}$ - is an EMC energy resolution
396: depending upon fluctuations in the number of particles produced in
397: the EM shower.
398: %cite reference here.
399:
400: The fluctuations are independent and so
401:
402: \begin{equation}
403: \sigma(\frac{E}{p}) \approx \sqrt{\frac{\sigma(E)^{2}}{p^{2}} + \frac{E^{2} \cdot
404: \sigma(p)^{2}}{p^{4}}} \approx \sqrt{\sigma_{C}^{2} + \sigma_{MS}^{2}
405: + \frac{\sigma_{EMC}^{2}}{p_{T}} + (\sigma_{DCH}\cdot
406: p)^{2}}
407: \label{eq:ch4.ep_resol}
408: \end{equation}
409: \\
410: Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.ep_resol} was obtained assuming $E \approx p
411: \approx p_{T}$. From this equation one can see that at low $p_{T}$
412: the main contributor to $E/p$ resolution is energy resolution
413: which is been overcome by momentum resolution term at high $p_{T}$
414: and starts grow linearly.
415:
416: The mean and sigma of $E/p$ distribution for electron candidates
417: was obtained as a function of $p_T$ by fitting each slice with
418: Gaussian + exponential background (or Gaussian wherever background
419: is negligible or non-exponential). Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.fit_ep} shows
420: the fit results for different $p_T$ bins starting from 0.4 GeV/c
421: up to 5 GeV/c. \pagebreak
422:
423: \begin{figure}[ht]
424: \begin{center}
425: \epsfig{figure=./4/fit_ep.eps,width=1.0\linewidth}
426: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.fit_ep} Fits to $E/p$ distribution of
427: electron candidates for different $p_T$ bins.}
428: \end{center}
429: \end{figure}
430:
431: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.mean_sigma_ep} shows the mean and sigma
432: distribution for the Gaussian component of the fit as a function
433: of electron transverse momentum. One can see that we have a very
434: clean electron sample with the background contribution slowly
435: drifting to the lower $E/p$ values going to higher momentum.
436:
437:
438:
439: From Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.fit_ep} one can see that our energy and
440: momentum measurements are in good agreement. The apparent fall of
441: the mean $E/p$ is possibly related with the fact that at low
442: momentum the inclination angle of the track becomes significant
443: and EMC cluster starts to spread spatially and we start measure
444: only a fraction of its total deposited energy\footnote{The EMC
445: cluster algorithm is tuned for photons that land at near-normal
446: incidence.}.
447:
448:
449:
450:
451: \begin{figure}[]
452: \begin{center}
453: \epsfig{figure=./4/mean_sigma_ep.eps,width=1\linewidth}
454: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.mean_sigma_ep} a) Mean and b) Sigma of
455: $E/p$ Gaussian fit to electron signal as a function of $p_T$
456: (Sigma is fitted with Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.ep_resol} function).}
457: \end{center}
458: \end{figure}
459: The $E/p$ resolution is fitted with Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.ep_resol} and
460: the following energy and momentum resolution were derived:
461:
462: \begin{itemize}
463: \item $\sigma_{C} \oplus \sigma_{MS} = (3.82 \pm 0.86)\%$
464:
465: \item $\sigma_{EMC} = (8.47 \pm 0.28)\%$
466:
467: \item $\sigma_{DCH} = (1.48 \pm 0.41)\%$
468: \end{itemize}
469:
470: This results are in good agreement with PHENIX measurements of energy
471: and momentum resolution~\cite{pp_pi0,ana172} via other independent
472: techniques.
473:
474: As the background level in p+p collisions is very low and
475: significantly suppressed by EMC matching cuts, we decided to use a
476: loose ($\pm 3\sigma$) $E/p$ cut for the analysis
477: \\ \\
478: $|\frac{E/p- <E/p>}{\sigma(E/p)}| < 3$
479: \\ \\
480: Thus, the cut width follows the fitted sigma as a function of the
481: track's momentum.
482:
483: \newpage
484: \section{Inclusive electron invariant crossection}\label{sec:ch4.Inclusive}
485:
486: This section of the Thesis explains the procedure of single
487: differential crossection calculation for single electrons starting
488: from the "raw" $\frac{N_{e}}{\Delta p_T}$ distribution, correction of
489: the "raw" electron distribution to full azimuthal \& one unit in
490: rapidity, estimation of background level, combining ERT and MB
491: data sample, trigger bias correction of the final crossection and
492: bin width related corrections. The final expression for MB and ERT
493: inclusive crossection can be written the following way
494:
495: \begin{eqnarray}
496: E\frac{d\sigma}{dp_{T}^3}_{MB} &=&
497: \frac{1}{N_{MB}}\cdot\frac{1}{2\pi}\cdot\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{p_{T}}\cdot
498: \frac{N_{e\ MB}}{\Delta p_{T}}\cdot\frac{1}{\Delta y}\cdot\frac{\sigma_{pp\ tot}\cdot\epsilon_{BBC}}
499: {\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})\cdot\epsilon_{bias}(p_{T})}\nonumber\\
500: E\frac{d\sigma}{dp_{T}^3}_{ERT} &=&
501: \frac{1}{N_{MB\ live}}\cdot\frac{1}{2\pi}\cdot\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{p_{T}}\cdot
502: \frac{N_{e\ ERT}}{\Delta p_{T}}\cdot\frac{1}{\Delta y}\cdot\frac{\sigma_{pp\ tot}\cdot\epsilon_{BBC}}
503: {\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})\cdot\epsilon_{bias}(p_{T})\cdot\epsilon_{ERT}(p_{T})}\nonumber\\
504: \label{eq:ch4.inv_cross}
505: \end{eqnarray}
506:
507: where
508: \\
509: \begin{tabular}{ll}
510: \\
511: $N_{MB}$ &- number of scaled minimum bias events in MB
512: sample (Table~\ref{tab:runqatable})\\
513: $N_{MB\ live}$ &- number of live minimum
514: bias events in ERT sample (Table~\ref{tab:runqatable})\\
515: $\frac{N_{e}}{\Delta p_{T}}$ &- "raw" electron count in
516: $p_{T}$ bin\\
517: $\Delta y $&- rapidity range ($\pm 0.5$ units in rapidity)\\
518: $\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})$ &- reconstruction and acceptance
519: efficiency (correction function)\\
520: $\epsilon_{bias}(p_{T})$ &- BBC trigger bias\\
521: $\sigma_{pp\ tot}$ &- total p+p inelastic crossection~\cite{ana148} $(42.2\pm1.9)$ mb\\
522: $\epsilon_{BBC}$ &- BBC efficiency for Minimum Bias~\cite{ana148} $(0.516\pm0.031)$\\
523: $\epsilon_{ERT}(p_{T})$ &- ERT trigger efficiency\\
524: \\
525: \end{tabular}
526:
527:
528: \subsection{"Raw" electron yield}
529:
530: A standard procedure for any spectroscopic measurement is to start
531: with "raw" signal counting. First of all we selected an
532: appropriate $p_{T}$ binning which was chosen to match the bin
533: boundaries of previous Au+Au single electron measurements
534: ~\cite{ppg035}. Those bins that had significant statistics compared
535: to Au+Au were split into two. The final choice for the binning is
536: listed below:
537: \begin{itemize}
538: \item $\{ 0.4,\ 0.5,\ 0.6,\ 0.8,\ 1.0,\ 1.2,\ 1.4,\ 1.6,\ 2.0, \
539: 2.5,\ 3.0,\ 4.0,\ 5.0 \} $
540: \end{itemize}
541: \pagebreak
542:
543:
544: \begin{figure}[ht]
545: \centering
546: \epsfig{figure=./4/raw_electrons.eps,width=0.7\linewidth}
547: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.raw_electrons} "Raw" electron count in
548: $p_T$ bin for Minimum Bias and ERT trigger sample.}
549: \end{figure}
550:
551: \begin{table}[h]
552: \centering \caption{"Raw" electron count in $p_T$ bin for Minimum
553: Bias and ERT trigger sample.}
554: \begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|r|}
555: \hline $p_T$ bin [GeV/c] & $N_{e\ MB}$ & $\delta N_{e\ MB}$
556: &$N_{e\ ERT}$ & $\delta N_{e\ ERT}$\\
557: \hline
558: 0.4-0.5& 498& 22.31& 16& 4.00\\
559: 0.5-0.6& 278& 16.67& 69& 8.30\\
560: 0.6-0.8& 276& 16.61& 424& 20.59\\
561: 0.8-1.0& 104& 10.20& 846& 29.09\\
562: 1.0-1.2& 45& 6.71& 728& 26.98\\
563: 1.2-1.4& 19& 4.36& 433& 20.81\\
564: 1.4-1.6& 12& 3.46& 301& 17.35\\
565: 1.6-2.0& 10& 3.16& 263& 16.22\\
566: 2.0-2.5& 7& 2.65& 120& 10.95\\
567: 2.5-3.0& 4& 2.00& 30& 5.48\\
568: 3.0-4.0& 0& 0& 21& 4.58 \\
569: 4.0-5.0& 0& 0& 5& 2.24\\
570: \hline
571: \end{tabular}
572: \label{tab:raw_table}
573: \end{table}
574:
575: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.raw_electrons} shows the electron statistics per
576: bin for the ERT and Minimum Bias trigger data samples.
577: Table~\ref{tab:raw_table} summarizes "raw" electron counting
578: results. One can see that statistics in three highest $p_{T}$ bins
579: is quite low which is a limiting factor for Run02 single electron
580: analysis.
581:
582:
583: \subsection{ERT trigger efficiency}
584:
585: The ERT trigger for Run02 was calculated for the $J/\psi$ analysis in
586: $\pp$ Run02~\cite{jpsi,ana139} using single photons. The photon
587: analysis uses only the EMC bit of the ERT trigger. However, the RICH
588: trigger part the trigger does not introduce a significant efficiency
589: loss. We can not use single electrons for the trigger efficiency
590: measurement due to low statistics. The ERT efficiency calculation is
591: trivial and described below.
592:
593: \begin{itemize}
594: \item Find a single photon cluster of energy $E$ in EMC with tight
595: identification cuts from a Minimum Bias event.
596:
597: \item Check whether the ERT EMC trigger bit was set for this event
598: and whether $\bold {this\ particular\ photon}$ fired the trigger.
599:
600: \item The ratio of ERT registered yield $dN_{r}/dE$ to the total
601: yield $dN_{t}/dE$ will give us ERT trigger efficiency
602: $\epsilon_{ERT}(E)$
603:
604: \end{itemize}
605:
606: Taking into account the fact that the electron momentum resolution
607: at low $p_{T}$ is much better then energy resolution we use the
608: trigger efficiency as a function of particle momentum instead of
609: energy $\epsilon_{ERT}(p)$.
610:
611:
612: The measured ERT trigger efficiency for the E2, E3 EMC sectors is
613: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ert_eff}. The systematic error shows the
614: maximum extent error of efficiency variation obtained by a 10\%
615: variation of the number of dead/noisy towers in the trigger
616: simulation. The trigger efficiency may be underestimated for this
617: analysis because we remove additional "bad" EMC towers (see
618: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.dead_emc}) as compared to the $J\Psi$ analysis, but
619: this difference is easily covered by the systematic error. Both
620: the trigger efficiency and hi-lo limits of the systematic error were
621: fitted with arbitrary functions, presented in
622: Table~\ref{tab:ert_eff_table}
623:
624: \begin{table}[ht]
625: \centering \caption{Fit results for ERT trigger efficiency and
626: hi-lo systematic error band for E2,E3 EMC sectors.}
627: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
628: \hline & ERT efficiency & Systematic error (hi limit)
629: &Systematic error (lo limit)\\
630: \hline
631: &&&\\
632: E2 & $\frac{1}{1+0.771/p^{4}+0.473/p^{9}}$
633: &$\frac{1}{1+0.451/p^{4}+0.525/p^{6}}$ &
634: $\frac{1}{1+1.307/p^{4}+0.685/p^{9}}$\\
635: %&&&\\
636: \hline
637: &&&\\
638: E3 & $\frac{0.96}{1+1.252/p^{4}+0.588/p^{9}}$
639: &$\frac{0.99}{1+0.681/p^{4}+0.787/p^{6}}$ &
640: $\frac{0.94}{1+1.649/p^{4}+1.435/p^{9}}$\\
641: %&&&\\
642: \hline
643: \end{tabular}
644: \label{tab:ert_eff_table}
645: \end{table}
646:
647: \begin{figure}[]
648: \centering \epsfig{figure=./4/ert_eff.eps,width=1\linewidth}
649: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ert_eff} ERT trigger efficiency for E2, E3
650: EMC sector. The systematic error band to the efficiency from
651: trigger simulation.}
652: \end{figure}
653:
654: \newpage
655: \subsection{Hadronic background}\label{sec:ch4.hadr}
656:
657: The major source of background for this analysis is a random
658: coincidence of a charged track with a RICH cluster (thereby
659: falsely identifying the track as an electron). This was studied
660: previously in great detail for the $\Au$ single electron
661: measurements~\cite{ppg011,ppg035} where this contribution is much
662: more significant. In $\pp$ collisions the multiplicity is low,
663: thus the chance of random coincidence is significantly reduced
664: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.fit_ep} for background level estimation).
665: The standard technique that is used in PHENIX offline software is
666: so called "$\it {flip\ and\ slide}$" method which is based on
667: creation of a fake ("swapped") charged tracks by exchanging the
668: North and South hits in all detectors except the drift chamber.
669: This way we create an unbiased random track that then is being
670: associated with outer PHENIX detector. The number of RICH
671: phototube that are associated with the "swapped" charged track
672: denotes as $sn0$. The distribution of $E/p$ for the $n0 > 1$ and
673: $sn0 > 1$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ep_sn0} for Minimum Bias
674: data sample. Unfortunately, we can not use ERT trigger sample for
675: those studies because the electron content of ERT events is
676: strongly biased by trigger efficiency. One can see that the
677: statistics of the purely random association of Minimum Bias sample
678: is very small and alternative way to estimate the background
679: contribution must to be found.
680:
681: We want to make an assumption at this point that the random
682: association rate should not depend on the inclination angle of the
683: track and, thus, it is not a function of the particles momentum.
684: We would then find a constant probability $\epsilon_{rand}$ that
685: the charged track is associated with a RICH ring. We can plot
686: the $E/p$ distribution for $\bold {charged\ tracks}$ and normalize
687: it to the $sn0 >1$ $E/p$ distribution at low $p_{T}$. The
688: normalization constant will be $\epsilon_{rand}$ by construction.
689: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ep_hadrons} shows the $E/p$ distribution for
690: $n0>1$ , $sn0 >1$ , and charged hadrons scaled by $\epsilon_{rand}
691: = (3\pm1.5(sys))\cdot10^{-4}$ . In order to account for a
692: qualitative comparison in the normalization, we put a large (50\%)
693: systematic error on this value.
694:
695: This probability does not include the effect of the $\pm 3 \sigma\
696: E/p$ cut rejection. It adds an additional suppression of the
697: random hadron association component by a factor $\approx 10-100$.
698: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ep_rejection} shows the probability that
699: randomly associated charged track "survives" the $E/p$ cut.
700:
701: \newpage
702:
703: \begin{figure}[h]
704: \begin{tabular}{lr}
705: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
706: \begin{flushleft}
707: \epsfig{figure=./4/ep_sn0.eps,width=1\linewidth}
708: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ep_sn0} $E/p$ distribution for electron
709: candidates (solid curve) and random association tracks $sn0
710: >1$ (dashed curve) for Minimum Bias events $p_T
711: > 0.4$ GeV/c.}
712: \end{flushleft}
713: \end{minipage}
714: &
715: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
716: \begin{flushright}
717: \epsfig{figure=./4/ep_hadrons.eps,width=1\linewidth}
718: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ep_hadrons} $E/p$ distribution for
719: electron candidates (solid curve), random association tracks
720: (dashed curve) and charged hadron tracks scaled by
721: $\epsilon_{rand} = 3\cdot10^{-4}$ (thick solid curve) for Minimum
722: Bias events $p_T
723: > 0.4$ GeV/c.}
724: \end{flushright}
725: \end{minipage}
726: \end{tabular}
727: \centering
728: \epsfig{figure=./4/ep_rejection.eps,width=0.8\linewidth,clip}
729: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ep_rejection} Rejection power of $|E/p|
730: <3\sigma$ for charged hadrons.}
731: \end{figure}
732:
733: \subsection{$\delta$-electron background}
734:
735: $\delta$-electrons (also called "knock-on" electrons or $\delta$-rays)
736: refer to energetic electrons, that were knocked from the atomic shell
737: of some atom in the detector volume. Depending on the construction of
738: the detector and particle identification principles "knock-on"
739: electrons may create a significant background.
740:
741: In the case of PHENIX we need to take into account the rate of
742: electrons emitted in RICH gas volume. The difference with previous
743: effect is that delta electron, emitted with a reasonably small
744: angle with respect to the initial hadron can create a hit in RICH
745: and be misidentified as an electron. Thus, we need to estimate the
746: probability for a hadron to emit delta electron that may fire RICH
747: detector. To estimate the yield of $\delta$-rays in RICH volume
748: \linebreak (100 cm of $CO_2$) we used the formula
749: (~\ref{eq:ch4.delta_rate},
750: ~\ref{eq:ch4.tmax})~\cite{PDG}\footnote{In calculations below we
751: assume the validity of Rutherford crossection and \\spin-0
752: incident pion}.
753:
754: \begin{equation}
755: \frac{d^2 N}{dTdx} =
756: \frac{1}{2}Kz^2\frac{Z}{A}\frac{1}{\beta^2}\frac{(1-\beta^2T/T_{max})}{T^2}\\
757: \label{eq:ch4.delta_rate}
758: \end{equation}
759:
760: \begin{equation}
761: T_{max} =
762: \frac{2m_{e}c^{2}\beta^2}{1+2\gamma m_{e}/M+(m_{e}/M)^2}\\
763: \label{eq:ch4.tmax}
764: \end{equation}
765:
766: where
767: \\
768: \begin{tabular}{ll}
769: \\
770: $K$&- $4\pi N_{A}r_{e}^{2}m_{e}c^2 = 0.307075\ [MeV\,cm^2]$\\
771: $Z$ &- atomic number of absorber\\
772: $A$ &- atomic mass of absorber $[g\, mol^{-1}]$\\
773: $z$ &- charge of the incident particle\\
774: $T$&- kinetic energy of the electron\\
775: $\gamma$&- $\gamma$ the incident particle\\
776: $\beta$&- $\beta$ the incident particle\\
777: $M$&- mass of the incident particle\\
778: $T_{max}$&- maximal possible kinetic energy of the
779: $\delta$-electron
780: (Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.tmax})\\
781: \\
782: \end{tabular}
783:
784: RICH threshold for the electron is $\gamma_{thr} = 35$. Thus,
785: minimal energy of electron that can "fire" RICH is $E_{min} =
786: \gamma_{thr} \cdot m_e c^2 \approx 17.9$ MeV. Integrating
787: Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.delta_rate} on T from $E_{min}$ to $T_{max}$ we
788: obtain the total yield of $\delta$-electrons as the function of
789: pion momentum (Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.Init_delta}).
790:
791: \begin{figure}[ht]
792: \centering
793: \epsfig{figure=./4/Init_delta.eps,width=0.7\linewidth,clip}
794: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.Init_delta} Total $\delta$-electron rate
795: as a function of incident pion momentum.}
796: \end{figure}
797:
798:
799: The angle of the "knock-on" electron with respect to the incident
800: pion can be calculated by the following formula~\cite{PDG}:
801:
802: \begin{equation}
803: \cos(\theta) = (T_{e}/p_{e})(p_{max}/T_{max})\\
804: \label{eq:ch4.cos_theta}
805: \end{equation}
806:
807: where
808: \\
809: \begin{tabular}{ll}
810: $T_{e},p_{e}$&- kinetic energy and momentum of the electron\\
811: $T_{max},p_{max}$&- maximum available kinetic energy and momentum of the electron\\
812: \\
813: \end{tabular}
814:
815: Due to the RICH's geometrical acceptance, only when the $\delta$-ray is
816: produced within $\cos(\theta_{max}) > 1/n$ with respect to the
817: pion direction will its Cerenkov radiation overlap in the RICH
818: "ring" constructed around the pion projection point. The
819: refraction index for $CO_{2}$ gas $n = 1 + 410\cdot10^{-6}$ which
820: gives the value for the maximum angle $\theta_{max} = 28.63$ mrad.
821: From Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.cos_theta} one can calculate the minimal
822: kinetic energy $T_{min}$ of $\delta$-electron which is deflected
823: to an angle $\theta = \theta_{max}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.T_max_min}
824: shows the range of kinetic energies for electrons that are emitted
825: in $\theta<\theta_{max}$ cone around the direction of incident
826: pion.
827:
828:
829: Now we can obtain the yield of $\delta$-electrons that can be
830: reconstructed in the RICH by integrating Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.delta_rate}
831: from $T_{min}$ to $T_{max}$. $\delta$-electrons rate as a function
832: of incident pion momentum is shown in
833: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.rate_delta_final}. One can see that we have a
834: probability of $\epsilon_{\delta}\approx 10^{-6}$ for a pion to
835: create such an electron (the rate is even smaller for incident
836: particle of higher mass). The yield is significantly lower then
837: previously calculated random association background of
838: $3\cdot10^{-4}$. Thus, $\delta$-electron contribution can be
839: neglected in PHENIX electron analysis.
840: \newpage
841:
842: \begin{figure}[ht]
843: \centering
844: \epsfig{figure=./4/T_delta.eps,width=0.78\linewidth,clip}
845: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.T_max_min} The range of $\delta$-electron
846: kinetic energy that can be reconstructed by RICH, $T_{min}$
847: (solid) and $T_{max}$ (dashed).} \vspace*{-0.05in}
848: \epsfig{figure=./4/Final_delta_rate.eps,width=0.78\linewidth,clip}
849: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.rate_delta_final} Rate of
850: $\delta$-electrons reconstructible by RICH as a function of
851: incident pion momentum.}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854:
855: \subsection{Acceptance Correction function}\label{sec:ch4.cf}
856:
857: In order to properly normalize the results of the measurements, we
858: need to calculate the factor which describes the difference
859: between an ideal $4\pi$ detector and PHENIX. This factor (see
860: Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.inv_cross}) is called the correction function
861: $\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})$ and takes into account the limited
862: acceptance and track reconstruction efficiency.
863:
864: The standard way to obtain the correction function is through the
865: full simulation of particle detection probability assuming an ideally
866: distributed input particle density. In the case of single electron
867: analysis we "throw" single electrons, generated by the
868: EXODUS~\cite{EXODUS} event generator, with the following input
869: parameters
870: \begin{itemize}
871: \item Uniform azimuthal angle distribution $0<\phi<2\pi$
872: \item
873: Uniform vertex $Z_{vtx}$ distribution\footnote{There is no strong
874: dependence of reconstruction efficiency on $Z_{vtx}$. This fact allows
875: us to use a "flat" vertex distribution instead of realistic "Gaussian"
876: distribution (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.bbcz})} $|Z_{vtx}|<25$
877: cm
878: \item Uniform rapidity distribution $-0.6 <y< 0.6$ units
879: \item Uniform $p_{T}$ distribution $0.0 <p_{T}< 5.0$ GeV/c
880: \end{itemize}
881:
882: The total statistics of our simulation sample was $3.98\cdot10^6$
883: single particles ($2.00\cdot10^6$ positrons and $1.98\cdot10^6$
884: electrons).
885:
886: The particles pass through the full detector simulation chain
887: called PISA ($\it{PHENIX\ Integrated\ Simulation\
888: Application}$~\cite{PISA}). PISA is a GEANT-3 based simulation
889: code that has been successfully used since 1992 to simulate
890: realistic particle propagation and detector response. The particle
891: is "swimmed" through the tabulated Magnetic Field and GEANT-3
892: simulates the interaction of the primary particle with the
893: material inside the PHENIX aperture. Both primary and secondary
894: particles create a $\bold{hit}$ every time they enter the active
895: area of the detector. This "Monte Carlo hit" information
896: is stored in the $\it{"PISA\ output\ file"}$.
897:
898: The next step in simulation is applying a realistic detector
899: response to the MC hits. This procedure includes a smearing of hit
900: position and timing with appropriate resolution, digitization of
901: the timing and analog information, hit merging, applying
902: time-of-flight effects, and reproduction of registration efficiency
903: \& dead map for each detector subsystem, e.t.c.
904:
905: The final step of the simulation is the $\it{reconstruction}$ of the
906: simulated data using standard PHENIX offline code which is used
907: for real data analysis.
908:
909: As an output we have a collection of reconstructed tracks. The offline
910: software ($\it{evaluation\ package}$) maintains the relationship
911: between MC track and reconstructed track. A "main contributor" scheme
912: is used in that the MC track that provided most hits to any
913: reconstructed track is then considered to be the $\bold{"main\
914: contributor"}$ to that track and is considered as the source of that
915: reconstructed track. This helps us to obtain a direct correspondence
916: between the reconstructed track parameters and the input track parameters.
917:
918: The first thing that needs to be checked in simulation is the momentum
919: and energy resolution. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.mom_res_sim} shows the mean
920: and $\sigma$ of the difference between reconstructed $p_{T}$ and
921: initial $p_{T\ MC}$ transversal momentum as a function of $p_{T\ MC}$
922: for electrons and positrons. One can see that there is a linear
923: dependence of the $\delta(p_{T})$ which needs to be removed from the
924: simulation (we can not justify that this effect should exist in
925: simulation and need to remove it and later treat it as a systematic
926: error).
927:
928: \begin{figure}[h]
929: \centering
930: \begin{tabular}{ll}
931: \epsfig{figure=./4/mom_res_sim_electrons.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip}
932: \epsfig{figure=./4/mom_res_sim_positrons.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip}
933: \end{tabular}
934: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.mom_res_sim} Mean and sigma of difference
935: between reconstructed and ideal $p_{T}$ in Simulation for
936: electrons (left) and positrons (right). Linear fit is shown for
937: mean distribution, sigma is fitted with Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.resol}
938: functional form.}
939: \end{figure}
940:
941: The momentum resolution can be estimated from the fit to
942: $\sigma(p_{T}-p_{T\ MC})$ using functional form for the momentum
943: resolution (Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.resol}). The Drift Chamber momentum
944: resolution term in simulation is factor of two smaller then in the
945: data:
946:
947: \begin{itemize}
948: \item $\sigma_{MS} = (0.87 \pm 0.05)\%$
949:
950: \item $\sigma_{DCH} = (0.74 \pm 0.02)\%$
951: \end{itemize}
952:
953: this means that we need to artificially worsen the momentum
954: resolution in simulation and study what effect it may cause on the
955: correction function (see Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Systematics}).
956:
957: The momentum distribution of input particles is uniform and different
958: from the $\frac{dN_{e}}{dp_{T}}$ of real data. In order to take into
959: account this difference, a weighting factor of
960: $(\frac{dN_{e}}{dp_{T}})_{Data}$ dependent upon $p_{T\ MC}$ is
961: applied to each Monte Carlo variable. This weighting
962: procedure "artificially" adjusts the shape of the input MC momentum
963: distribution to match the final Data momentum shape. The shape of
964: the final inclusive electron distribution can be taken from
965: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.final_inclusive} and we can assume the weighting
966: function to be:
967: \begin{equation}
968: w(p_{T\ MC})=\left(\frac{dN_{e}}{dp_{T}}\right)_{Data} = \frac{p_{T\ MC}}{(p_{T\ MC}+0.406)^{7.249}}
969: \label{eq:ch4.weight_mc}
970: \end{equation}
971: The absolute scale is taken arbitrary in this formula as we are only
972: interested in the shape of the input spectrum.
973: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.dNdpt_sim} shows the comparison of the reconstructed
974: tracks in Simulation weighted with $w(p_{T\ MC})$ and reconstructed
975: Minimum Bias (not final!) One can see that the shape of reconstructed
976: tracks in the data agrees very well with Monte Carlo.
977:
978: Matching and eID cut parameters of the Simulations were adjusted
979: in the same way as was done for the data. A comparison of the
980: acceptance in the simulation and real data after applying the full
981: eID cuts is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.comp_acc_mb} for MB data
982: sample ($0.5 <p_{T} <2.0$ GeV/c) and in
983: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.comp_acc_ert} for ERT data sample scaled by ERT
984: trigger efficiency ($1.5 <p_{T} <5.0$ GeV/c). The acceptance
985: agrees well in all projections ($\phi$, $\phi_{EMC}$, $Z$,
986: $Z_{EMC}$).
987:
988:
989: \begin{figure}[]
990: \centering
991: \epsfig{figure=./4/pt_sim_data.eps,width=0.9\linewidth,clip}
992: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.dNdpt_sim} Comparison of
993: $\frac{dN_{e}}{dp_{T}}$ distribution for weighted PISA simulation
994: (circles) and MB data (squares). Ratio of $\frac{dN_{e}}{dp_{T}}$
995: in MB data to simulation (right).}
996: \epsfig{figure=./4/acc_sim_data_mb.eps,width=0.9\linewidth,clip}
997: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.comp_acc_mb} Comparison of acceptance in
998: $\phi$, $\phi_{EMC}$, $Z$, $Z_{EMC}$ for MB data (thin line) and
999: weighted PISA simulation (thick line) for $0.5 <p_{T} <2.0$
1000: GeV/c.}
1001: \end{figure}
1002:
1003: \begin{figure}[]
1004: \centering
1005: \epsfig{figure=./4/acc_sim_data_ert.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
1006: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.comp_acc_ert} Comparison of acceptance in
1007: $\phi$, $\phi_{EMC}$, $Z$, $Z_{EMC}$ for ERT data (thin line) and
1008: weighted PISA simulation (thick line) for $1.5 <p_{T} <5.0$
1009: GeV/c.}
1010: \end{figure}
1011: \newpage
1012:
1013: Now we have everything to calculate the correction function for
1014: simulation. By definition of the correction function:
1015:
1016: \begin{equation}
1017: \epsilon_{reco}(p_{T\ Reco})=\frac{\frac{dN}{dp_{T}}_{Reco}\cdot w(p_{T\
1018: Output})}{\frac{dN}{dp_{T}}_{Input}\cdot w(p_{T\
1019: Input})}
1020: \label{eq:ch4.weight_mc_2}
1021: \end{equation}
1022:
1023: where the ratio means the ratio of the histograms (for a given
1024: $p_{T}$ bin) filled with $\frac{dN}{dp_{T}}_{Output}\cdot w(p_{T\
1025: Output})$ and $\frac{dN}{dp_{T}}_{Reco}\cdot w(p_{T\ Input})$
1026: correspondingly. $p_{T\ Input}$ denotes the transverse momentum of
1027: the input EXODUS particle, $p_{T\ Output}$ is the transverse
1028: momentum of the "main contributor" PISA track associated to the
1029: reconstructed track with $p_{T\ Reco}$. This method of correction
1030: function calculation treats the weighting of the input and output
1031: distributions correctly.
1032:
1033: A rapidity cut of $|y| <0.5$ is applied to the input tracks in order
1034: to normalize the correction function to one unit of rapidity.
1035:
1036: The correction function for the $e^{+}+e^{-}$ simulation is shown
1037: on Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.corr_function}. The points are fitted in a
1038: range $0.4 <p_T<4.5$ GeV/c with a functional form that well-describes the
1039: shape.
1040:
1041: \begin{figure}[hb]
1042: \centering
1043: \epsfig{figure=./4/corr_function.eps,width=0.95\linewidth,clip}
1044: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.corr_function} Correction function
1045: $\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})$ for $e^{+}+e^{-}$ (full electron ID
1046: cuts).}
1047: \end{figure}
1048:
1049: The correction function indicates that we register $\approx 2.5\%$
1050: of the simulated particles in our acceptance almost independent on
1051: $p_{T}$. The apparent drop of $\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})$ at
1052: $p_T>4.8$ GeV/c is non-physical and is caused by the high momentum cut-off
1053: $p_{T\ Input} < 5.0$ GeV/c in the simulated particle sample.
1054:
1055: Correction functions for electrons and positrons separately are
1056: shown in
1057: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.corr_function_electrons}~\ref{fig:ch4.corr_function_positrons}.
1058: The shape of the correction functions for different charges is
1059: \linebreak different because of highly asymmetric acceptance of
1060: the TZR counter "shadow" cut (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.alpha_phi}).
1061:
1062: \begin{figure}[hb]
1063: \centering
1064: \epsfig{figure=./4/corr_function_electrons.eps,width=0.55\linewidth,clip}
1065: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.corr_function_electrons} Correction
1066: function $\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})$ for $e^{-}$. Total correction
1067: function (dashed curve) shown for comparison.}
1068: \epsfig{figure=./4/corr_function_positrons.eps,width=0.55\linewidth,clip}
1069: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.corr_function_positrons} Correction
1070: function $\epsilon_{reco}(p_{T})$ for $e^{+}$. Total correction
1071: function (dashed curve) shown for comparison.}
1072: \end{figure}
1073:
1074: \newpage
1075:
1076: \subsection{BBC Trigger Bias}\label{sec:ch4.trig_bias}
1077:
1078: The remaining unknown in Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.inv_cross} is the $\bold{BBC\
1079: trigger\ bias}$ $\epsilon_{bias}(p_{T})$. ``BBC trigger bias'' is
1080: PHENIX-specific term referring to the probability at which the BBC
1081: counter issues a Level 1 trigger decision for an event containing
1082: specific particle of interest. The overall BBC efficiency describes
1083: the fraction of the total $p+p$ crossection registered by the BBC and
1084: was measured by Vernier scan to be $\epsilon_{BBC} =(0.516\pm0.031)$
1085: ~\cite{ana148}. It is obvious that events with a hard parton
1086: scattering are more likely to be registered because the track
1087: multiplicity in the BBC is higher for these events. As an example,
1088: soft partonic scattering or worse still single- or double-diffractive
1089: scattering produce far fewer tracks in the BBC and are more likely to
1090: fail in generating a trigger. This means that of all events that
1091: contain a hard scattering process, the fraction recorded will be
1092: higher than the ``inclusive'' BBC trigger cross section. The fact
1093: that the trigger cross section depends upon the physics process is
1094: what we term ``Bias''.
1095:
1096: $\epsilon_{bias}(p_{T})$ was calculated ~\cite{pp_pi0} for $\pi^0$
1097: production using the following technique:
1098:
1099: \begin{itemize}
1100: \item An unbiased sample of events was selected to be ERT 4x4 trigger
1101: with no BBC requirements.
1102:
1103: \item $\pi^0$ was reconstructed through the $\pi^0 \rightarrow \gamma
1104: + \gamma$ decay in the EMC using the formula $M_{\gamma \gamma} = 4\cdot
1105: E_{1}\cdot E_{2}\cdot sin^{2}(\theta_{\gamma \gamma}/2)$.
1106:
1107: \item The BBC trigger bias was calculated as a ratio of events with
1108: BBC vertex information reconstructed to the total number of ERT
1109: events.
1110:
1111: \end{itemize}
1112:
1113: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.pi0_trig_bias} shows BBC trigger bias as a
1114: function of neutral pion $p_{T}$. One can see that the results
1115: agree with the value of $\epsilon_{bias} = (0.75\pm0.02)$
1116: independent of $p_{T}$~\cite{pp_pi0} and, as expected,
1117: significantly higher than the inclusive BBC efficiency,
1118: $\epsilon_{BBC} =(0.516\pm0.031)$.
1119:
1120:
1121: This measured value of the constant BBC trigger bias is in good
1122: agreement with PYTHIA calculations of the BBC efficiency for hard
1123: pQCD partonic scattering processes~\cite{ana148}.
1124: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.pythia_trig_bias} shows the PYTHIA simulation
1125: results for the BBC trigger efficiency as a function of the
1126: collision vertex, $Z_{vtx}$, for different physical processes. One
1127: can see that the expected efficiency for pQCD hard processes is
1128: $\approx$ 0.75 independent on the vertex position. Open Charm
1129: production should use this value of trigger bias since any
1130: collision process that can generate the charm quark's mass energy
1131: will certainly be a hard process. \pagebreak
1132:
1133: \begin{figure}[ht]
1134:
1135: \epsfig{figure=./4/trig_bias.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
1136: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.pi0_trig_bias} BBC trigger bias for
1137: neutral pions as a function of $\pi^0\ p_{T}$ with the constant
1138: fit to the data~\cite{pp_pi0}.}
1139:
1140: \centering
1141: \epsfig{figure=./4/pythia_bbc_bias.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
1142: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.pythia_trig_bias} PYTHIA+PISA calculations
1143: for BBC efficiency as function of $Z_{vtx}$ for different physical
1144: processes. }
1145: \end{figure}
1146: \pagebreak
1147:
1148: At low $p_{T}$ we have a large contribution of soft
1149: parton scattering and in this case the best way to estimate
1150: trigger bias is by looking at charged hadrons yield using similar
1151: approach as for $\pi^0$. This analysis was performed
1152: in~\cite{ana148} using purely random $\bold{Clock\ trigger}$.
1153: "Clock trigger" (or "Forced accept trigger") is a special trigger
1154: mechanism which force a random event ($f_{Clock} = 1$ Hz) to be
1155: stored at a certain bunch crossing independent on Level 1 trigger
1156: decision. This feature makes the "Clock trigger" completely
1157: unbiased.
1158:
1159: The DCH uses time to measure position. The appropriate time is the
1160: time of the DCH hit as compared to the collision time (as measured by
1161: the BBC). Thus, the drift chamber requires the BBC to perform its
1162: tracking and cannot be used to determine the unbiased efficiency. To
1163: solve this problem ~\cite{ana148}, the charged hadron analysis group
1164: uses tracks, constructed using only the PC2, PC3, EMC cluster position
1165: information. This method works quite well for our low multiplicity
1166: $p+p$ collisions. Moreover, the $Z_{vtx}$ position is approximately
1167: evaluated by a PC hit $Z$ extrapolation to the vertex point. By
1168: making a rough vertex cut, and taking the ratio of "Clock trigger"
1169: events having a valid BBC vertex to the total number of "Clock trigger"
1170: events, they estimated the BBC bias correction for charged hadrons as a
1171: function of $p_{T}$. Their final result is shown in
1172: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.charged_trig_bias}. At $p_{T}>1.3$ GeV/c the BBC trigger
1173: bias becomes independent of $p_{T}$ and agrees well with the $\pi^0$ results. At
1174: lower $p_{T}$ we observe a linear behavior that can be approximated by
1175: $\epsilon_{bias}(p_{T}) = 0.59 +0.12\cdot p_{T}$.
1176:
1177: \begin{figure}[hb]
1178: \centering
1179: \epsfig{figure=./4/charged_trig_bias.eps,width=0.7\linewidth,clip}
1180: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.charged_trig_bias} BBC trigger bias for
1181: charged hadrons as a function of $p_{T}$ with fits to the data in
1182: two intervals~\cite{ana148}.}
1183: \end{figure}
1184:
1185: \pagebreak For the "Photonic" electron case, we must look at the
1186: Dalitz decay of light vector mesons that have a given probability
1187: to fire the BBC trigger depending on their momentum. In order to
1188: evaluate the trigger bias for the decay electrons we need to use
1189: an indirect method of trigger bias estimation because the electron
1190: momentum is about a factor of two lower than its parent meson's
1191: momentum. To make a translation of hadronic trigger bias to the
1192: one for the electrons we use the EXODUS~\cite{EXODUS} decay
1193: machine (see Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Cocktail}). Two versions of the
1194: electron Cocktail were simulated, one without trigger bias on the
1195: input pion crossection, and one with the trigger bias estimation
1196: from Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.charged_trig_bias}. The ratio of these two
1197: Cocktail predictions gives an estimate for the "Photonic" electron
1198: BBC trigger bias. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.photonic_trig_bias} shows the
1199: final "Photonic" electron BBC trigger bias as a function of
1200: electron transverse momentum. The final trigger bias results are
1201: summarized in Table.\ref{tab:trig_bias}.
1202:
1203: \begin{figure}[h]
1204: \centering
1205: \epsfig{figure=./4/photonic_trig_bias.eps,width=0.7\linewidth,clip}
1206: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.photonic_trig_bias} BBC trigger bias for
1207: EXODUS Cocktail electrons as a function of $p_{T}$ with fits to
1208: the data in two $p_{T}$ intervals.}
1209: \end{figure}
1210: \begin{table}[h]
1211: \caption{BBC trigger bias fit results for different particles. All
1212: values have 3\% systematic uncertainties~\cite{ana148}} \centering
1213: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|c|}
1214: \hline Particle & Low $p_T$ &
1215: High $p_T$ & Cut-off [GeV/c]\\
1216: \hline Charged hadrons & $0.59 + 0.12\cdot p_{T}$ & $0.75$
1217: &1.33\\
1218: \hline "Photonic" electrons & $0.61 + 0.19p_{T} - 0.061 p_{T}^2$
1219: &0.75&1.16\\
1220: \hline "Non-photonic" electrons &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$0.75$}\\
1221: \cline{1-3}
1222: \end{tabular}
1223: \label{tab:trig_bias}
1224: \end{table}
1225:
1226: \subsection{Combining statistics}
1227:
1228: Now we have everything necessary to calculate the inclusive electron
1229: crossection using the formula from Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.inv_cross}. Since
1230: the electron spectrum at low $p_{T}$ is dominated by electrons from
1231: "Photonic" sources, we use the "Photonic" trigger bias to
1232: normalize the crossection. This is a valid assumption for the first
1233: iteration, as at $p_{T} < 1.0$ GeV/c the "photonic" contribution is about
1234: 80\% of the total electron signal.
1235:
1236: The inclusive electron crossection for the Minimum Bias and the ERT trigger
1237: sample is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.initial_inclusive}. The hadronic
1238: background contribution is not subtracted from the spectra but
1239: is shown in the plot for comparison. The same trigger bias correction
1240: as for the electrons is applied to the hadronic background
1241: contribution. Only statistical errors are shown in this plot. The data
1242: points are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:init_incl}.
1243:
1244: \begin{figure}[h]
1245: \centering
1246: \epsfig{figure=./4/initial_inclusive.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
1247: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.initial_inclusive} Initial inclusive
1248: electron invariant crossection for Minimum Bias (circles) , ERT
1249: trigger (squares). Random Hadronic background level (asterisk) is
1250: $\bold{not}$ subtracted from the data. }
1251: \end{figure}
1252:
1253: \begin{table}[ht]
1254: \caption{ Initial inclusive electron invariant crossection for
1255: Minimum Bias, ERT trigger. Random Hadronic background level is
1256: $\bold{not}$ subtracted from the data. Crossection and statistical
1257: errors are in units of $\cunit$.}
1258: \begin{center}
1259: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1260: \hline $p_{T}$ bin & MB &MB & ERT &ERT &Random&Random\\
1261: $[GeV/c]$ & cros-&stat.&cros-&stat.&cros-&stat.\\
1262: & section&error§ion&error§ion&error\\
1263: \hline
1264: 0.4-0.5 &8.29e-02 &3.73e-03 &8.61e-02 &2.63e-02 &2.85e-03 &1.20e-05 \\
1265: 0.5-0.6 &3.51e-02 &2.11e-03 &2.79e-02 &4.05e-03 &8.66e-04 &5.76e-06 \\
1266: 0.6-0.8 &1.33e-02 &8.05e-04 &1.09e-02 &6.67e-04 &2.31e-04 &1.84e-06 \\
1267: 0.8-1.0 &3.69e-03 &3.63e-04 &3.86e-03 &1.43e-04 &5.47e-05 &7.66e-07 \\
1268: 1.0-1.2 &1.27e-03 &1.90e-04 &1.37e-03 &5.18e-05 &1.58e-05 &3.68e-07 \\
1269: 1.2-1.4 &4.53e-04 &1.04e-04 &5.02e-04 &2.43e-05 &4.80e-06 &1.86e-07 \\
1270: 1.4-1.6 &2.47e-04 &7.14e-05 &2.64e-04 &1.53e-05 &1.75e-06 &1.05e-07 \\
1271: 1.6-2.0 &9.14e-05 &2.89e-05 &9.02e-05 &5.58e-06 &5.55e-07 &3.89e-08 \\
1272: 2.0-2.5 &4.04e-05 &1.53e-05 &2.52e-05 &2.31e-06 &8.29e-08 &1.21e-08 \\
1273: 2.5-3.0 &1.9e-05 &9.68e-06 &5.08e-06 &9.28e-07 &2.39e-08 &5.81e-09 \\
1274: 3.0-4.0 &0.00e+00 &0.00e+00 &1.42e-06 &3.11e-07 &3.45e-09 &1.41e-09 \\
1275: 4.0-5.0 &0.00e+00 &0.00e+00 &2.65e-07 &1.19e-07 &4.80e-10 &4.80e-10 \\
1276: \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:init_incl} \end{center}
1277: \end{table}
1278:
1279: The standard way of combining two statistically independent data sets
1280: is to use the weighted average of both data sets. We assumption two
1281: independent measurements, of a normally distributed value $n$, $n_{1}$
1282: and $n_{2}$, with corresponding statistical errors, $\sigma_{1}$ and
1283: $\sigma_{2}$. In this case the unbiased estimator and the absolute
1284: uncertainty of the value can be calculated as:
1285: \begin{eqnarray}
1286: \langle n \rangle &=&(\frac{n_1}{\sigma_1^2}
1287: +\frac{n_2}{\sigma_2^{2}})/(\frac{1}{\sigma_1^2}
1288: +\frac{1}{\sigma_2^2})\nonumber \\
1289: \sigma_n^2 &=& 1/(\frac{1}{\sigma_{1}^{2}}
1290: +\frac{1}{\sigma_{2}^{2}}) \label{eq:ch4.weight_avg}
1291: \end{eqnarray}
1292:
1293: In the case of the ERT trigger data, the absolute error of the result
1294: will strongly depend on the systematic error of the ERT trigger.
1295: Thus, in order to to use Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.weight_avg} we need to
1296: $\bold{combine}$ the statistical error of ERT data with the systematic
1297: error. Using the systematic error band previously quoted in
1298: Table~\ref{tab:ert_eff_table}, we can obtain the variation level of
1299: the ERT inclusive electron spectrum shown in
1300: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ERT_variation}. To simplify the error propagation, a
1301: symmetric error band, engulfing the hi-lo variations, was assumed for the
1302: total systematic error to the ERT inclusive sample. One can see that
1303: the systematic error is significant at low $p_{T}$ and falls to
1304: $\approx 5\%$ at $p_{T} > 2.0$ GeV/c.
1305:
1306: \newpage
1307: \begin{figure}[h]
1308: \centering
1309: \epsfig{figure=./4/systematic_error_ert.eps,width=0.6\linewidth,clip}
1310: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ERT_variation} Systematic error band on
1311: the ERT inclusive electron crossection due to uncertainty of ERT
1312: trigger efficiency (Table~\ref{tab:ert_eff_table}). Asymmetric
1313: error band (solid) uses the exact variations. Symmetric error
1314: band (dashed) is used in the analysis.}
1315: \epsfig{figure=./4/combined_inclusive.eps,width=0.8\linewidth,clip,trim
1316: = 0in 0in 0in 0.5in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.comb_incl} Inclusive
1317: electron invariant crossection for Minimum Bias (circle) and ERT
1318: data sample (squares) (ERT statistical errors includes the
1319: systematic error due to ERT trigger efficiency). Combined by
1320: Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.weight_avg} inclusive electron invariant
1321: crossection (large circle). Hadronic background is subtracted from
1322: both data samples (see Table~\ref{tab:init_incl}). }
1323: \end{figure}
1324: \pagebreak
1325:
1326: The statistical error of the ERT inclusive electron
1327: crossection (Table~\ref{tab:init_incl}) is combined with the
1328: systematic error as a squared sum. The final error on the MB-only
1329: and ERT-only inclusive electron invariant crossection together
1330: with the weighted average of both data sets is shown in
1331: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.comb_incl} and summarized in
1332: Table~\ref{tab:comb_incl}. The hadronic background is already
1333: $\bold{subtracted}$ at this point. Those MB sample $p_{T}$ bins
1334: that have zero statistics are assumed to have infinite statistical
1335: error and do not contribute to the combined crossection.
1336:
1337:
1338:
1339: The ratio of MB and ERT inclusive electron crossection is shown in
1340: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_MB_ERT}. The two independent data sets are
1341: seen to be in good agreement with each other. There is an indication
1342: that ERT signal is ~5\% higher then the MB in $p_{T}$ region from 1.0
1343: to 2.0 GeV/c which is possibly due to the underestimation of ERT
1344: trigger efficiency in this region as discussed previously. Please note
1345: that the systematic error on the ERT trigger efficiency more than
1346: covers this systematic difference. The apparent discrepancy of the MB
1347: crossection at $p_{T} > 2.5 $ GeV/c is due prinarily to low statistics
1348: in those bins (see Table~\ref{tab:raw_table}).
1349:
1350: \newpage
1351: \begin{table}[ht]
1352: \caption{ Inclusive electron invariant crossection for MB and ERT
1353: data sample (ERT statistical errors includes the systematic error
1354: due to ERT trigger efficiency). Combined inclusive electron
1355: crossection with statistical error. Hadronic background is
1356: subtracted from both data samples (see Table~\ref{tab:init_incl}).
1357: Crossection and statistical errors are in units of $\cunit$.}
1358: \begin{center}
1359: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1360: \hline $p_{T}$ bin & MB &MB& ERT &ERT&Comb.&Comb.\\
1361: $[GeV/c]$ & cros-&stat.&cros-&stat.&cros-&stat.\\
1362: §ion&error§ion&error§ion&error\\
1363: \hline
1364: 0.4-0.5 &8.01e-02 &3.73e-03 &8.32e-02 &1.96e-01 &8.01e-02 &3.73e-03 \\
1365: 0.5-0.6 &3.43e-02 &2.11e-03 &2.70e-02 &4.65e-02 &3.43e-02 &2.11e-03 \\
1366: 0.6-0.8 &1.31e-02 &8.05e-04 &1.06e-02 &1.12e-02 &1.31e-02 &8.02e-04 \\
1367: 0.8-1.0 &3.64e-03 &3.63e-04 &3.80e-03 &2.11e-03 &3.64e-03 &3.58e-04 \\
1368: 1.0-1.2 &1.26e-03 &1.90e-04 &1.35e-03 &4.12e-04 &1.27e-03 &1.73e-04 \\
1369: 1.2-1.4 &4.49e-04 &1.04e-04 &4.98e-04 &9.09e-05 &4.76e-04 &6.85e-05 \\
1370: 1.4-1.6 &2.45e-04 &7.14e-05 &2.63e-04 &3.33e-05 &2.59e-04 &3.02e-05 \\
1371: 1.6-2.0 &9.08e-05 &2.89e-05 &8.96e-05 &8.40e-06 &8.97e-05 &8.06e-06 \\
1372: 2.0-2.5 &4.03e-05 &1.53e-05 &2.52e-05 &2.59e-06 &2.56e-05 &2.56e-06 \\
1373: 2.5-3.0 &1.93e-05 &9.68e-06 &5.05e-06 &9.47e-07 &5.19e-06 &9.42e-07 \\
1374: 3.0-4.0 &0.00e+00 &1.00e+15 &1.42e-06 &3.13e-07 &1.42e-06 &3.13e-07 \\
1375: 4.0-5.0 &0.00e+00 &1.00e+15 &2.64e-07 &1.19e-07 &2.64e-07 &1.19e-07 \\
1376: \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:comb_incl} \end{center}
1377: \end{table}
1378: \begin{figure}[h]
1379: \centering
1380: \epsfig{figure=./4/mb_ert_ratio.eps,width=0.6\linewidth,trim = 0in
1381: 0in 0in 0.5in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_MB_ERT} Ratio of MB
1382: electron inclusive crossection to ERT crossection as a function of
1383: $p_{T}$. }
1384: \end{figure}
1385:
1386: \pagebreak
1387: \subsection{Bin width corrections}
1388:
1389: The width of the bins in the current analysis are significant. Thus,
1390: the assumption that the mean $p_{T}$ of the electrons within a bin
1391: equals the $p_T$ at the center of the bin is not correct for our
1392: steeply falling distribution. We need to correct for this shift of the
1393: mean $p_{T}$ within the histogram bin. The official PHENIX bin width
1394: correction method ~\cite{ana073} has been successfully implemented
1395: for all major spectrometric PHENIX results including this one.
1396:
1397: The details of the iterative bin width correction method are described
1398: below:
1399:
1400: \begin{itemize}
1401: \item{$\bold{First\ iteration}$: Make an assumption about the
1402: shape of the spectrum to be corrected. In our case both the inclusive
1403: and subtracted crossections are well fit with modified power law
1404: function
1405: \begin{equation}
1406: f(p_T)=\frac{A}{(p_0+p_T)^n} \label{eq:ch4.hagedorn}
1407: \end{equation}
1408: where $A,\ p0,\ n$ are fit function parameters }
1409: \item{Fit data
1410: with the function~\ref{eq:ch4.hagedorn} to obtain initial guess
1411: parameters.}
1412: \item{Calculate the mean $p_{T}$ for given $p_T$ bin
1413: $[a;b]$ by solving the integral equation for $p_{T\ mean}$
1414: \begin{equation}
1415: f(p_{T\ mean})=\frac{\int_{a}^{b} f(p) dp}{b-a}
1416: \label{eq:ch4.mean_pt}
1417: \end{equation}
1418: } \item{Move data points from bin center to $p_{T\ mean}$}
1419: \item{$\bold{Next\ iteration}$:Repeat the same steps using the
1420: data points corrected on previous iteration }
1421: \end{itemize}
1422:
1423: This process converges after 5-10 iterations, producing fit parameters
1424: that are nearly identical (to the computer's finite precision) to
1425: those from the previous iteration. Upon convergence of the iterative
1426: process, we move the data points to be in the center of the bin by
1427: recalculating the bin height and the corresponding statistical and
1428: systematic errors at the center of the bin \footnote{ The process of
1429: moving point along the ordinate axis while keeping it in the bin
1430: center does not converge if repeated multiple time and should be used
1431: only once at final stage. The vertical shift is done in order to
1432: simplify the comparison with different experimental data
1433: sets such as AuAu.}. \nopagebreak
1434: \begin{equation}
1435: y' = y\cdot \frac{f(\frac{b-a}{2})}{f(p_{T\ mean})},\ \ \delta y'
1436: = \delta y\cdot \frac{f(\frac{b-a}{2})}{f(p_{T\ mean})}
1437: \label{eq:ch4.y_shift}
1438: \end{equation}
1439:
1440: After applying the described method to the combined electron
1441: spectrum, we obtain our $\bold{final\ inclusive\ electron\ invariant\
1442: crossection}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.final_inclusive} and
1443: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:final_incl}. The final fit result by
1444: modified power law function is shown in the figure.
1445:
1446: \begin{figure}[h]
1447: \centering
1448: \epsfig{figure=./4/final_inclusive.eps,width=0.6\linewidth,clip}
1449: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.final_inclusive} Final bin-width corrected
1450: inclusive electron invariant crossection fitted with modified
1451: power law function $\frac{p0}{(p1+p_{T})^{p3}}$.}
1452: \end{figure}
1453: \begin{table}[h]
1454: \caption{ Final inclusive electron invariant crossection before
1455: and after the bin width correction.}
1456: \centering
1457: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c||c|c||c|}
1458: \hline Uncorrected &Final& Final& Correction\\
1459: crossection&crossection&stat. error&factor\\ \hline
1460: 8.010e-02 &7.742e-02 &3.606e-03 &0.967\\
1461: 3.426e-02 &3.334e-02 &2.054e-03 &0.973\\
1462: 1.307e-02 &1.204e-02 &7.398e-04 &0.922\\
1463: 3.642e-03 &3.435e-03 &3.374e-04 &0.943\\
1464: 1.274e-03 &1.219e-03 &1.650e-04 &0.957\\
1465: 4.765e-04 &4.605e-04 &6.619e-05 &0.966\\
1466: 2.595e-04 &2.525e-04 &2.935e-05 &0.973\\
1467: 8.971e-05 &8.266e-05 &7.433e-06 &0.921\\
1468: 2.557e-05 &2.342e-05 &2.342e-06 &0.916\\
1469: 5.187e-06 &4.873e-06 &8.854e-07 &0.939\\
1470: 1.417e-06 &1.204e-06 &2.664e-07 &0.850\\
1471: 2.645e-07 &2.386e-07 &1.072e-07 &0.902\\
1472: \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:final_incl}
1473: \end{table}
1474: \pagebreak
1475:
1476: \section{Cocktail Estimation of the "Photonic" Electron Component}\label{sec:ch4.Cocktail}
1477:
1478:
1479: Our principal goal is not to learn the inclusive electron
1480: spectrum, but rather the component of that spectrum that comes
1481: from heavy flavor \linebreak decays. Photonic electrons such as
1482: those resulting from the decays of light vector mesons are a
1483: physical background to our signal that must be estimated and
1484: subtracted. To estimate the background electron rate from these
1485: known photonic sources we again used EXODUS~\cite{EXODUS}
1486: $\bold{Cocktail}$ generator. The EXODUS-based cocktail simulation
1487: uses the following basic steps:
1488: \begin{itemize}
1489: \item {Simulate the Dalitz decays of light vector mesons ($\pi^0$,
1490: $\eta$, $\eta'$, $\omega$) using the standard Dalitz decay
1491: formalism~\cite{Kroll_Wada}.}
1492: \item {Establish a realistic input distribution for the mesons using
1493: the measured $\pi^0$ crossection. The abundance of higher mass vector
1494: mesons is fixed by assuming $m_T$ scaling of the meson ratios at high
1495: $p_{T}$~\cite{ppg011}.}
1496: \item {Normalize conversion electrons rates using the ratio of conversion electrons to
1497: Dalitz, as obtained from full the PISA simulation.}
1498: \end{itemize}
1499:
1500: \subsection{Cocktail input}
1501:
1502: \subsubsection{Neutral pions}
1503:
1504: The $\pi^0$ Dalitz decay ($\pi^0 \rightarrow \gamma e^{+}e^{-}$)
1505: is the main source of electrons in PHENIX. As input we use all
1506: available PHENIX measurements of the pion crossection. At high
1507: $p_{T} (> 1.0$ GeV/c) we use the published $\pi^0$
1508: results~\cite{pp_pi0}. At low $p_T$ we can use the charged pion
1509: measurements from Run03 $p+p$ at $\sqs = 200$ GeV that are
1510: currently being prepared for publication~\cite{ppg029}. \linebreak
1511: In combining these two data sets, we assume that the $\pi^0$
1512: spectrum is the same as the average charged pion spectrum.
1513: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.pion_fit} shows the result of the combined pion
1514: invariant crossection fit with a modified power law fit
1515: function\footnote{The quadratic term is not necessary to achieve a
1516: superb fit of the pion spectra in $\pp$ collisions, but it turns
1517: out to be important in case of $Au+Au$ collisions at the same
1518: energy. Therefore, we include it for consistency with different
1519: colliding systems.} (Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.pion_fit_form}). The ratio
1520: of data to fit is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_pion_fit}:
1521:
1522: \begin{equation}
1523: E \frac{d\sigma}{dp_T^3} = \frac{c}{(e^{(-a\cdot p_T - b\cdot
1524: p_T^2)} + p_T/p_0)^n} \label{eq:ch4.pion_fit_form}
1525: \end{equation}
1526:
1527: \begin{figure}[ht]
1528: \centering
1529: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.1_upper.eps,width=0.8\linewidth,clip}
1530: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.pion_fit} Invariant crossection of charge
1531: averaged pions $(\pi^{+} +\pi^{-})/2$ measured in Run03
1532: $p+p$ collisions~\cite{ppg029} (blue) and Run02 $p+p$
1533: $\pi^0$ crossection~\cite{pp_pi0} (red) fitted with a modified
1534: power law function (Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.pion_fit_form}).} \centering
1535: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.1_lower.eps,width=0.7\linewidth,clip}
1536: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_pion_fit} Ratio of data to fit from
1537: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.pion_fit}.}
1538: \end{figure}
1539:
1540: Fit parameters listed below:\\
1541: $c= 566 \pm 130$\\
1542: $p_0= 0.68 \pm 0.05$\\
1543: $a= 0.29 \pm 0.06$\\
1544: $b= 0.073 \pm 0.041$\\
1545: $n= 8.34 \pm 0.22$ \pagebreak
1546:
1547: The parameterization chosen here is not meant to be of any physical
1548: relevance. Our only goal is to have an excellent parameterization of
1549: the pion spectrum as input to the EXODUS simulations. Only the
1550: statistical errors are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.pion_fit}
1551: ~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_pion_fit}. The systematic error on the initial
1552: pion spectrum will be accounted for as an uncertainty applied to the
1553: final Cocktail result. (see
1554: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Cocktail_Systematics}).
1555:
1556: \subsubsection{Other light mesons}
1557:
1558: Other light mesons contributing to the inclusive electron crossection
1559: via their decays are the ($\pi^0$, $\eta$, $\eta'$, $\omega$, $\rho$)
1560: mesons. Of all these, only the $\eta$ meson contributes a sizable
1561: fraction of the inclusive decay electrons, particularly at high
1562: $p_{T}$. The cocktail input for these other light mesons is prepared
1563: in the established way:
1564:
1565: \begin{itemize}
1566: \item The rapidity distributions are assumed to be flat around mid
1567: rapidity.
1568: \item Shapes of the transverse momentum distributions are obtained via
1569: $m_T$ scaling from the pions. The pion'ss modified power law fit
1570: parameterization from the previous section
1571: (Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.pion_fit_form}) is used as input for other mesons
1572: where transverse momentum $p_{T}$ is replaced by $\sqrt{p_{T}^2 +
1573: m_{lm}^2 - m_{\pi}^2}$. Here $m_{lm}$ denotes the mass of the light
1574: meson.
1575: \item The relative normalization of the light meson yield is fixed by
1576: forcing the ratio $\frac{meson}{\pi^0}$ at high $p_{T}$ to the known
1577: values measured at other $\sqs$. These ratios and corresponding
1578: systematic errors are summarized in Table.~\ref{tab:part_ratios}
1579: ~\cite{ana101}. We conservatively assign 30\% as the $1\sigma$
1580: systematic error on all meson ratios except the $\eta$, for which the
1581: systematic uncertainty is smaller since it was recently measured by
1582: PHENIX ~\cite{ana333,ana337}.
1583: \end{itemize}
1584:
1585: \begin{table}[b]
1586: \caption{ Ratios of light mesons to $\pi^0$ at high $p_T$.}
1587: \begin{center}
1588: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|}
1589: \hline &Ratio& Sys. Error\\ \hline
1590: $\eta /\pi^0$& 0.45 & 0.10 \\
1591: $\rho /\pi^0$& 1.00 & 0.30 \\
1592: $\omega /\pi^0$& 1.00 & 0.30 \\
1593: $\eta' /\pi^0$& 0.25 & 0.08 \\
1594: $\phi /\pi^0$& 0.40 & 0.12 \\
1595: \hline
1596: \end{tabular} \label{tab:part_ratios} \end{center}
1597: \end{table}
1598:
1599: Although all higher mass mesons beyond the $\eta$ are essentially
1600: irrelevant (due to small yield), it is important to explicitly
1601: demonstrate that the chosen parameterization is reasonable for
1602: $\eta$-meson. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.eta_pion} shows the ratio of eta/pion in the
1603: Cocktail using $m_T$ scaling assumption and a constant particle
1604: ratio at high $p_T$ of 0.45.
1605:
1606: \begin{figure}[h]
1607: \centering
1608: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.4.eps,width=0.6\linewidth,clip}
1609: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.eta_pion} Ratio of $\eta$ to $\pi^0$ as
1610: function of $p_{T}$ in Cocktail.}
1611: \end{figure}
1612:
1613: To check whether $m_{T}$ scaling actually holds in PHENIX, we compare
1614: the Cocktail for $\eta$ meson invariant crossection with Run03
1615: $p+p$ $\eta$ measurements~\cite{ana333}. The results of this
1616: comparison are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.eta_crosscheck}. In the
1617: measured $p_{T}$ range, the agreement between Cocktail and data is
1618: perfect, thereby validating our initial assumptions.
1619: \begin{figure}[h]
1620: \centering
1621: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.5_upper.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip}
1622: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.5_lower.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip}
1623: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.eta_crosscheck} (Left panel) $\eta$-meson
1624: invariant crossection (points) compared with the parameterization
1625: used in the current cocktail (statistical errors only). (Right
1626: panel) Ratio of data to Cocktail parameterization is shown in the
1627: lower panel (error bars are the quadratic sum of statistical and
1628: systematic errors).}
1629: \end{figure}
1630:
1631: \pagebreak
1632:
1633: \subsubsection{Photon conversions}
1634:
1635: The estimate of the level of photon conversion is the principal source
1636: of systematic error in the current analysis. The treatment of
1637: conversion level depends on how accurately we represent the material
1638: in the PHENIX acceptance in our simulation. Very detailed studies were
1639: done for the $Au+Au$ single electron analysis~\cite{ppg035,ana305} by
1640: matching the conversion rate in Data and Simulation. The conclusion
1641: from those studies was that the Data and the representation of the
1642: material in the PISA simulation were consistent within the $\approx
1643: 8\%$ systematic error.
1644:
1645: A full PISA simulation of $63\cdot 10^6$ generated $\pi^0$ decays
1646: was used to estimate the ratio of $\pi^0$ Conversion to $\pi^0$
1647: Dalitz electron ratio. The decay mode of each registered electron
1648: could be determined by the displacement of the Monte Carlo decay
1649: vertex in the $XY$ plane $d_e$. During track reconstruction, all
1650: the particles are assumed to have been emitted from the
1651: interaction point. Thus the momentum of off-vertex conversions
1652: electrons is slightly mis-measured. The amount of momentum shift
1653: increase linearly with $d_e$, eventually causing electrons to fail
1654: the eID cuts (mainly $d_{EMC}< 3$ cut).
1655:
1656: The main contributors to the overall conversion rate in PHENIX
1657: are: (1) beryllium $\bold{beam\ pipe}$ - radiation length $X_{bp}
1658: \approx 0.3 \%$~\cite{Tsai}, (2) 200 cm of $\bold{air}$ -
1659: radiation length $X_{air} \approx 0.7 \%$~\cite{Tsai}. Beam pipe
1660: conversions happen very close to vertex $r_{bp} \approx 4$ cm and
1661: do not cause any significant reconstruction efficiency loss.
1662: Conversely, air conversions far from vertex will be rejected
1663: significantly by the electron ID cuts.
1664: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.vertex_disp} shows the contributions of
1665: different leptonic modes of $\pi^0$ decay from the full PISA
1666: simulation as a function of decay vertex displacement with and
1667: without eID cuts. One can see that after $d_e > 60$ cm we have a
1668: significant drop in the electron registration efficiency due to
1669: the eID cuts. This means that we only reconstruct conversion
1670: electrons in \linebreak $\approx 60 - 70$ cm of air. This reduces
1671: the effective radiation length of air to $X_{air}^{eff} \approx
1672: 0.28 \%$.
1673:
1674: The ratio of conversion electrons to Dalitz can be estimated from
1675: PISA simulation and is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.conv_dalitz}.
1676: Realistic assumptions for the input pion distribution are applied
1677: to the simulation input. As one can see this ratio is $p_T$
1678: independent. A constant fit gives a value of $\frac{\pi^0
1679: Conv}{\pi^0 Dalitz} = 0.73 \pm 0.02(stat)$. This value is in a
1680: good agreement with the previously calculated radiation length in
1681: the acceptance. At high $p_T$, a Dalitz "effective radiation
1682: length"~\cite{PHENIXCDR,Tsai} should be equal to $X_{Dalitz}
1683: \approx 0.6\% \cdot \frac{9}{7} = 0.77 \%$. Then the ratio of
1684: Conversion to Dalitz radiation lengths gives:
1685: $\frac{X_{Conv}}{X_{Dalitz}} = (X_{bp}+X_{air}^{eff})/X_{Dalitz} =
1686: 0.58/0.77 \approx 0.75$, in good agreement with fitted value of
1687: 0.73.
1688:
1689: \pagebreak
1690:
1691: \begin{figure}[t]
1692: \centering
1693: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/d_e.eps,width=0.75\linewidth,clip}
1694: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.vertex_disp} Electron rate as a function
1695: of vertex displacement $d_e$ for $pi^0$ decay electrons with (blue
1696: curve) and without (red curve) the electron ID cut. Contributions
1697: from Dalitz, Beam pipe and air conversions indicated by arrows.}
1698: %\end{figure}
1699: %\begin{figure}
1700: %\centering
1701: \vspace*{0.2in}
1702: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/conv_dalitz.eps,width=0.75\linewidth,clip}
1703: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.conv_dalitz} Ratio of $\pi^0$ conversion
1704: electrons to $\pi^0$ Dalitz electrons as a function of electron
1705: $p_T$ fitted with a constant.}
1706: \end{figure}
1707: \pagebreak
1708:
1709: We obtain the electron contributions from photon conversions in
1710: the Cocktail by multiplying the electron spectra from any given light
1711: meson Dalitz decays with a constant factor. For $\pi^0$ this
1712: factor is 0.73. For other light mesons, this factor is corrected
1713: for ratio of the branching ratios BR($\gamma\gamma$)/BR(Dalitz) of
1714: the meson, as compared to the same ratio for $\pi^0$. For the $\eta$
1715: this ratio is 65.7 while for $\pi^0$ it is 82.5.
1716:
1717: \subsubsection{Direct photons}
1718:
1719: Direct photon conversion contributions can also be a significant
1720: source of background electrons. Direct photon radiation was measured
1721: in PHENIX~\cite{ppg049,ana325} and agrees within systematic error with
1722: NLO pQCD predictions~\cite{Vogelsang}. We use the NLO crossection as
1723: an input for the analysis. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.direct_NLO} shows
1724: modified power law fit (Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.direct_fit_form}) to the direct
1725: photon invariant yield~\cite{Vogelsang}. The fit function and
1726: parameters are listed below:
1727:
1728: \begin{equation}
1729: E \frac{d\sigma}{dp_T^3} = \frac{c}{(e^{-a\cdot p_T} + p_T/p_0)^n}
1730: \label{eq:ch4.direct_fit_form}
1731: \end{equation}
1732:
1733: where $c= 1.385$, $p_0= 0.25$, $a= -0.15$, $n= 5.82$.\\
1734:
1735: \begin{figure}[h]
1736: \centering
1737: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.7_left.eps,width=0.7\linewidth,clip}
1738: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.direct_NLO} Modified power law fit to
1739: direct photon yield NLO prediction~\cite{Vogelsang}.}
1740: %\end{figure}
1741: %\begin{figure}[h]
1742: %\centering
1743: \end{figure}
1744:
1745: \pagebreak
1746:
1747: \subsubsection{Kaon $K_{e3}$ decay}
1748:
1749: Kaons have a semi-leptonic decay mode ($K \rightarrow \pi e \nu_e$)
1750: usually refereed to as the $K_{e3}$ decay. The decay length of the
1751: different Kaon states and the $K_e3$ Branching Ratio are summarized in
1752: Table.~\ref{tab:kaon_ke3} ~\cite{PDG}. Kaon decay is $\bold{not}$
1753: "photon related" decay and in principle should not be evaluated as
1754: "Photonic" electron contributor. Any time we talk about "Photonic"
1755: contribution we need to mention whether Kaon decay is included or
1756: not. To be consistent with the main idea of the Cocktail -
1757: simulate explainable "background" electron level, $K_e3$ decay is
1758: $\it{artificially}$ added into the mix (EXODUS does not simulate
1759: Kaon decays!).
1760: \begin{table}[h]
1761: \caption{ $K_{e3}$ decay branching ratio and Decay Length for
1762: different Kaon species.}
1763: \begin{center}
1764: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|}
1765: \hline Decay mode& Decay Length [cm] & Branching Ratio [\%]\\
1766: \hline
1767: $K^{+} \rightarrow \pi^{0} e^{+}
1768: \nu_e$& 371.3&$(4.82\pm 0.06)$ \\
1769: $K^{0}_S \rightarrow \pi^{\pm} e^{\mp}
1770: \nu_e$& 2.679&$(7.2\pm 1.4)\cdot 10^{-4}$ \\
1771: $K^{0}_L \rightarrow \pi^{\pm} e^{\mp}
1772: \nu_e$& 1551&$(38.78\pm 0.28)$ \\
1773: \hline
1774: \end{tabular} \label{tab:kaon_ke3} \end{center}
1775: \end{table}
1776: One can see that $K^{\pm},\ K^0_S$ and $K^0_L$ have completely
1777: different decay rates and need to be treated separately. We used
1778: the full PISA simulation of charged Kaons, $K^0_S$ and $K^0_L$ to
1779: estimate the final electron rate. The spectra were normalized to
1780: the PHENIX Kaon measurements in Run03 $p+p$ at $\sqs = 200$
1781: GeV~\cite{ppg029}. The resulting electron crossection was compared
1782: to the inclusive electron crossection
1783: (see.~\ref{fig:ch4.final_inclusive}). The ratio of $K_{e3}$ decay
1784: electrons to the inclusive is shown in
1785: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.Kaon_electron_ratio}. The contribution is
1786: exponentially falling and only relevant at low $p_T < 1$ Gev/c.
1787: \begin{figure}[h]
1788: \centering
1789: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.13.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip}
1790: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.Kaon_electron_ratio} Ratio of $K_{e3}$
1791: decay electrons from simulation to inclusive electrons.}
1792: \end{figure}
1793:
1794:
1795: \subsection{Final Electron Cocktail}
1796:
1797: The final electron Cocktail and the breakdown into its
1798: contributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.final_cocktail}.
1799:
1800: \begin{figure}[h]
1801: \centering
1802: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/final_cocktail.eps,width=0.75\linewidth,clip}
1803: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.final_cocktail} Final electron
1804: ``Cocktail'' broken into separate contributions overlaid with the
1805: inclusive electron data. Bottom plot shows the relative
1806: contributions of each Cocktail component to the total.}
1807: \end{figure}
1808:
1809: The Cocktail was calculated using the $p_T$-dependent BBC trigger
1810: bias corrected charged pion spectrum (see
1811: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.trig_bias}).
1812: %The biased version of the Cocktail
1813: %that did not have BBC trigger bias applied was also produced and this
1814: %version was used for Cocktail subtraction
1815: %(Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Subtraction}).
1816:
1817: \section{"Non-photonic" Electron Crossection}\label{sec:ch4.Subtraction}
1818:
1819: This section is devoted to the results of the cocktail subtraction.
1820: Now we have all the ingredients to derive the electron component that
1821: can not be described by leptonic decays of light mesons or photon
1822: conversions in the apparatus material. The subtraction of the Cocktail
1823: "background" was done bin by bin, using the same binning for the
1824: cocktail as for the inclusive data. To take into account the BBC
1825: trigger bias effect, the realistic BBC trigger bias was applied to the
1826: input pion and kaon spectra. Then if we subtract from the non
1827: bias-corrected crossection the non-biased cocktail we remove the
1828: trigger bias effect for "Photonic" electrons. As was mentioned before,
1829: the remaining non-photonic electrons originated primarily from heavy
1830: flavor semi-leptonic decays should have a constant trigger bias as
1831: appropriate for hard partonic interactions. Thus, applying this
1832: correction to the subtraction results, we obtain bias-corrected
1833: non-photonic electron invariant crossection.
1834:
1835: The fully corrected "Non-photonic" electron invariant crossection is
1836: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.final_nonphotonic}. For comparison
1837: purposes the default PYTHIA prediction for Open
1838: Charm + Bottom decay electrons (see
1839: Section~\ref{sec:ch5.PYTHIA_comp}) is plotted. The final data points
1840: are listed in Table~\ref{tab:final_nonphotonic}. The modified power
1841: law fit $\frac{A}{(p_0+p_{T})^{n}}$ parameters are listed below:
1842: \begin{itemize}
1843: \item$A = (1.287\pm 1.714)\cdot 10^{-2}$ \item$p_0 = 0.547\pm
1844: 0.203$ \item$n = 6.87\pm 0.80$
1845: \end{itemize}
1846:
1847: \newpage
1848: \begin{figure}[h]
1849: \centering
1850: \epsfig{figure=./4/final_nonphotonic.eps,width=0.63\linewidth,clip}
1851: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.final_nonphotonic} Final bin-width
1852: corrected "Non-photonic" electron invariant crossection fitted
1853: with modified power law function $\frac{A}{(p_0+p_{T})^{n}}$
1854: overlaid with PYTHIA default~\cite{ppg011} prediction for Open
1855: Charm + Bottom electron crossection.}
1856: \end{figure}
1857: \begin{table}[h]
1858: \caption{ Non-photonic electron invariant crossection.} \centering
1859: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|c|c|}
1860: \hline $p_{T}$ bin & Non-photonic & Non-photonic & Non-photonic & Relative\\
1861: $[GeV/c]$ & crossection&stat. error& syst. error &stat. \\
1862: & $\cunit$ &$\cunit$&$\cunit$&error [\%]\\ \hline
1863: 0.4-0.5 &1.453e-02 &3.322e-03 &1.140e-02& 22.9 \\
1864: 0.5-0.6 &6.142e-03 &1.923e-03 &5.006e-03& 31.3 \\
1865: 0.6-0.8 &2.986e-03 &7.183e-04 &1.829e-03& 24.1 \\
1866: 0.8-1.0 &8.341e-04 &3.340e-04 &5.339e-04& 40.0 \\
1867: 1.0-1.2 &3.441e-04 &1.659e-04 &1.895e-04& 48.2 \\
1868: 1.2-1.4 &1.251e-04 &6.671e-05 &7.211e-05& 53.3 \\
1869: 1.4-1.6 &1.119e-04 &2.952e-05 &3.735e-05& 26.4 \\
1870: 1.6-2.0 &3.875e-05 &7.555e-06 &1.230e-05& 19.5 \\
1871: 2.0-2.5 &1.371e-05 &2.380e-06 &3.428e-06& 17.4 \\
1872: 2.5-3.0 &2.581e-06 &8.948e-07 &7.133e-07& 34.7 \\
1873: 3.0-4.0 &8.401e-07 &2.732e-07 &1.779e-07& 32.5 \\
1874: 4.0-5.0 &1.895e-07 &1.088e-07 &3.535e-08& 57.4 \\
1875: \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:final_nonphotonic}
1876: \end{table}
1877:
1878: \pagebreak
1879: \section{Converter Subtraction Method}\label{sec:ch4.Converter}
1880:
1881: The common alternative to a cocktail-subtraction analysis is the
1882: convertor-subtraction analysis. A converter subtraction analysis
1883: was previously and successfully used to obtain the non-photonic
1884: electron crossection in \linebreak Au+Au
1885: ~\cite{ana158,ana305,ana324}, d+Au~\cite{ana259}, and Run03
1886: p+p~\cite{ana321} collisions. This method provides accurate
1887: results, but is limited by the statistics of the conversion
1888: sample. The main idea is to obtain the photon related electron
1889: component by adding additional photon converter material with
1890: $\bold{known\ radiation\ length}$ \linebreak ($X_C = 1.67$ \%)
1891: close to the PHENIX interaction point for a portion of the Run
1892: period.
1893:
1894: By subtracting the inclusive electron crossection of the
1895: Non-converter run period from the one from Converter run period we
1896: directly obtain the "Converter" electron component, due to the
1897: additional material in the acceptance. Since the amount of
1898: material in PHENIX aperture ($X_{PHENIX}$) can be estimated, we
1899: can scale the "Converter" component to measure the "Photonic"
1900: component of the electron crossection and use this in place of the
1901: Cocktail prediction. The steps required for convertor analysis
1902: are:
1903: \begin{itemize}
1904: \item{We measure $\bold{biased}$ crossection in Converter and
1905: Non-converter run periods (denote it as $N^C$ and $N^{NC}$).
1906: \begin{eqnarray}
1907: N^{NC} &=& N^{NC}_{P} + N^{NC}_{NP}\\ \nonumber
1908: N^{C} &=& R\cdot N^{C}_{P} +
1909: N^{C}_{NP} \label{eq:ch4.conv_non_conv}
1910: \end{eqnarray}
1911: where index $P$ refers to "Photonic" component of crossection,
1912: $NP$ - to "Non-photonic" component and $R$ is a factor,
1913: representing the additional amount of converting material due to
1914: photon converter installation}
1915: \item{We account for the differences of BBC trigger bias for "Photonic" and "Non-photonic" electrons,
1916: denoted as $\epsilon_P$ and $\epsilon_NP$ as:
1917: from~\ref{eq:ch4.conv_non_conv}
1918: \begin{eqnarray}
1919: N^{unbiased}_P &=& \frac{1}{\epsilon_P}N_P =
1920: \frac{N^{C}-N^{NC}}{\epsilon_P\cdot (R-1)}
1921: \\
1922: \nonumber
1923: N^{unbiased}_{NP} &=& \frac{1}{\epsilon_N}N_{NP} =
1924: \frac{R\cdot N^{NC}-N^{C}}{\epsilon_N\cdot (R-1)}
1925: \label{eq:ch4.ph_nph}
1926: \end{eqnarray}}
1927: \end{itemize}
1928:
1929: The statistics of the Converter run is a limiting factor for this
1930: analysis and unfortunately for Run02 the total Converter run
1931: statistics(see Table~\ref{tab:runqatable}) does not allow us to make
1932: an accurate measurement of the "Non-photonic" component. Nonetheless,
1933: we can use this analysis for a consistency crosscheck of the Cocktail
1934: subtraction results.
1935:
1936: \subsection{Converter and Non-converter
1937: run group acceptance comparison}
1938:
1939: Acceptance of Converter and Non-converter run period was done by
1940: comparing $\frac{1}{N_{MB}}\frac{dN}{d\phi}$,
1941: $\frac{1}{N_{MB}}\frac{dN}{dZ}$ distributions (normalized by the
1942: number of MB events) for all charged tracks with standard eID cuts
1943: (except $n0>1$). The results are shown in
1944: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.comp_conv_nonconv} for different $p_{T}$ ranges.
1945: One can see very nice agreement in the acceptance of both run
1946: groups.
1947:
1948: \begin{figure}[hb]
1949: \centering
1950: \epsfig{figure=./4/acc_04_06.eps,width=0.48\linewidth,clip,trim =
1951: 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
1952: \epsfig{figure=./4/acc_06_10.eps,width=0.48\linewidth,clip,trim =
1953: 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
1954: \epsfig{figure=./4/acc_10_20.eps,width=0.48\linewidth,clip,trim =
1955: 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
1956: \epsfig{figure=./4/acc_20_50.eps,width=0.48\linewidth,clip,trim =
1957: 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.comp_conv_nonconv}
1958: Comparison of $\phi$ and $Z$ acceptance of charged tracks in
1959: Converter (thin) and Non-converter (thick) run period for
1960: different $p_T$ bins. Minimum Bias sample, full electron ID cuts
1961: (except $n0>1$).}
1962: \end{figure}
1963:
1964:
1965: We also compared $\frac{1}{N_{MB}} \frac{dN}{dp_{T}}$ distribution
1966: for two run groups. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.comp_conv_nonconv_pt} shows
1967: the ratio of $\frac{1}{N_{MB}} \frac{dN}{dp_{T}}$ distribution of
1968: Converter run to the same distribution of Non-converter run. Ratio
1969: is consistent with one within the statistical error. The increase
1970: at high $p_{T}$ values may indicate that the relative contribution
1971: of the electrons to the charged particles becomes significant and
1972: we observe the increase of the electron production due to the
1973: additional photon conversions in photon converter material.
1974:
1975: \begin{figure}[hb]
1976: \centering
1977: \epsfig{figure=./4/acc_pt.eps,width=0.7\linewidth,clip,trim = 0in
1978: 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
1979: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.comp_conv_nonconv_pt}
1980: Ratio of "raw" $\frac{1}{N_{MB}} \frac{dN}{dp_{T}}$ distributions
1981: for Converter and Non-Converter run groups. Charged tracks, full
1982: electron ID cuts (except $n0>1$).}
1983: \end{figure}
1984:
1985: \subsection{Inclusive electron crossection in Converter run}
1986:
1987: Inclusive electron crossection for MB and ERT sample for Converter
1988: runs was obtained the same way as for Non-converter run analysis
1989: (see Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Inclusive}). Subtraction of the
1990: converter component should be performed separately for MB and ERT
1991: sample in order not to double-count the ERT trigger efficiency
1992: systematic error \footnote{Here we use an assumption that we only
1993: do not know the absolute shape of ERT trigger efficiency and apply
1994: the systematic error to the results of subtraction. This is a
1995: valid approximation as acceptance of both run groups is almost
1996: identical.} and resulted photonic and non-photonic electron
1997: crossection should be combined using standard averaging formula
1998: from Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.weight_avg}.
1999: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.incl_conv_nonconv} shows the inclusive electron
2000: invariant crossection for Converter and Non-Converter run group.
2001: As we expected, the electron yield in Converter run is higher due
2002: to additional conversion material.
2003:
2004: \begin{figure}[t]
2005: \centering
2006: \epsfig{figure=./4/incl_conv_nonconv_mb.eps,width=0.48\linewidth,clip,trim
2007: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2008: \epsfig{figure=./4/incl_conv_nonconv_ert.eps,width=0.48\linewidth,clip,trim
2009: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2010: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.incl_conv_nonconv}
2011: Inclusive electron crossection for MB (left) and ERT trigger
2012: (right) for two run groups: Converter (squares) and Non-converter
2013: (circles). ERT sample have only statistical errors applied. }
2014: \end{figure}
2015:
2016: \subsection{Calculation of $R$}
2017:
2018: In order to obtain the "Photonic" and "Non-photonic" crossection
2019: using \linebreak Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.ph_nph} we need to estimate
2020: factor $R$ Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.conv_non_conv}. This factor accounts
2021: for the additional electrons produced through conversions in
2022: Photon Converter material. Usually, this ratio was calculated
2023: through full PISA simulation with photon converter implemented. We
2024: will try to get the best estimation for this variable from the
2025: first principles. From previous $Au+Au$ analysis
2026: ~\cite{ana305,ppg035} we know the radiation length of the
2027: Converter material $X_C = (1.67\pm 0.02) \%$. The "$\it{effective\
2028: radiation\ length}$"\footnote{Effective amount of material that
2029: need to be added to create the same conversion electron yield as
2030: from Dalitz $\pi^0$ decay.~\cite{PHENIXCDR}} of the $\pi^0$ Dalitz
2031: decay can be approximated for $E > 1.0 $ GeV photons as
2032: $X_{Dalitz}^{\pi^{0}} =0.6\% \cdot 9/7 = 0.77 \%$
2033: ~\cite{PHENIXCDR,Tsai}. Then we can derive $R$ the following way:
2034:
2035: \begin{equation}
2036: R = \frac{X_C +
2037: X_{Dalitz}^{\pi^{0}}+X_{Convers}}{X_{Dalitz}^{\pi^0}+X_{Convers}}
2038: = 1 + \frac{X_C}{X_{Dalitz}^{\pi^0}\cdot
2039: (1+\frac{X_{Convers}}{X_{Dalitz}^{\pi^0}})}
2040: \\
2041: \label{eq:ch4.R}
2042: \end{equation}
2043:
2044: Relative contribution of conversion electrons to $\pi^0$ Dalitz
2045: electrons $\frac{X_{Convers}}{X_{Dalitz}^{\pi^0}}$ can be obtained
2046: from Cocktail simulation. The ratio of all conversions to Dalitz
2047: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.all_conv_dalitz} fitted with
2048: arbitrary function.One can see that the ratio is higher then 0.73
2049: value from Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Cocktail} as it also includes
2050: photon conversions of $\eta$ and other light mesons.
2051:
2052: \begin{figure}[h]
2053: \begin{tabular}{lr}
2054: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
2055: \epsfig{figure=./4/conv_dalitz.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim =
2056: 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2057: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.all_conv_dalitz}
2058: Ratio of EXODUS Cocktail electrons from all conversions sources to
2059: $\pi0$ Dalitz electrons. Fit to the data by second order
2060: polynomial - exponential.}
2061: \end{minipage}
2062: &
2063: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth} \centering \epsfig{figure=./4/R.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2064: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2065: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.R}
2066: Ratio of photonic electron component with photon converter added
2067: to photonic electron component without the converter.}
2068: \end{minipage}
2069: \end{tabular}
2070: \end{figure}
2071:
2072: Upon substitution the fit results of
2073: $\frac{X_{Convers}}{X_{Dalitz}^{\pi^0}}$ into Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.R},
2074: obtain we the expression for $R$ as a function of electron $p_T$
2075: shown in Fig.\ref{fig:ch4.R}.
2076:
2077: \begin{equation}
2078: R = 1 + \frac{1.67 \%}{0.77 \%\cdot (1.9 - 2.3\cdot
2079: 10^{-2}p_{T}+7.9\cdot 10^{-3} p_{T}^2 -e^{-2.0-1.5\cdot p_{T}})}
2080: \\
2081: \label{eq:ch4.R_sub}
2082: \end{equation}
2083:
2084: \subsection{"Photonic" and "Non-photonic" electron component from Converter subtraction method}
2085:
2086: Now we have all the ingredients to calculate "Photonic" and
2087: "Non-photonic" electron crossection using Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.ph_nph}.
2088: The photonic electron crossection is using weighted average of
2089: subtracted MB and ERT component. ERT trigger efficiency
2090: uncertainty is added in quadrature to statistical error of ERT
2091: trigger subtracted distribution. Bin width correction is applied
2092: on the combined distribution. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.phot_conv_mb}
2093: shows "Photonic" component of electron crossection for MB and ERT
2094: sample and combined average. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.phot_cocktail}
2095: presents the comparison of final "Photonic" electron crossection
2096: with Cocktail prediction for the photonic electron background from
2097: all known sources (with exception of $K_{e3}$ decay which is not
2098: "photon related" process). The ratio of data to Cocktail is shown
2099: on Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_phot_cocktail}.
2100:
2101: \begin{figure}[ht]
2102: \centering
2103: \epsfig{figure=./4/phot_conv_mb.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip,trim
2104: = 0in 0.15in 0in 0.5in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.phot_conv_mb}
2105: "Photonic" electron invariant crossection for Minimum Bias
2106: (circle) and ERT data sample (squares) (ERT statistical errors
2107: includes the systematic error due to ERT trigger efficiency).
2108: Combined by Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.weight_avg} inclusive electron
2109: invariant crossection (large circle). } \centering
2110: \epsfig{figure=./4/phot_cocktail.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip,trim
2111: = 0in 0in 0in 0.2in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.phot_cocktail}
2112: "Photonic" electron invariant crossection comparison to Cocktail
2113: "Photonic" prediction. } \centering
2114: \epsfig{figure=./4/ratio_phot_cocktail.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip}
2115: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_phot_cocktail} Ratio of "Photonic"
2116: electron invariant crossection to Cocktail photonic prediction. }
2117: \end{figure}
2118:
2119: \pagebreak
2120:
2121: One can see that the photonic component, obtained from
2122: the data agrees with the Cocktail prediction within statistical
2123: errors. The main error source is a low statistics of the converter
2124: run period (especially in MB sample) which does not allow us to
2125: make an accurate measurement of the "photon related" electrons.
2126: Nevertheless, this agreement is very important
2127: $\bold{independent}$ confirmation result for more accurate
2128: Cocktail subtraction analysis.
2129: \begin{figure}[b]
2130: \centering
2131: \epsfig{figure=./4/non_phot_conv_mb.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip,trim
2132: = 0in 0.15in 0in 0.5in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.non_phot_conv_mb}
2133: "Non-photonic" electron invariant crossection for Minimum Bias
2134: (circle) and ERT data sample (squares) (ERT statistical errors
2135: includes the systematic error due to ERT trigger efficiency).
2136: Combined by Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.weight_avg} inclusive electron
2137: invariant crossection (large circle). }
2138: \epsfig{figure=./4/nonphot_comp.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip,trim
2139: = 0in 0in 0in 0.2in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.non_phot_final}
2140: "Non-Photonic" electron invariant crossection from Converter
2141: subtraction analysis (circles) comparison to Cocktail subtracted
2142: "Non-photonic" crossection (squares). }
2143: \end{figure}
2144:
2145: "Non-Photonic" electron component is calculated for similar way
2146: both MB and ERT trigger data set using Eq.~\ref{eq:ch4.ph_nph}.
2147: Combined crossection is calculated as weighted average of both
2148: trigger samples. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.non_phot_conv_mb} shows
2149: "Photonic" component of electron crossection for MB and ERT sample
2150: and combined average.Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.non_phot_final} shows the
2151: final "Non-photonic" electron invariant crossection from the
2152: converter subtraction method overlaid with Cocktail subtracted
2153: Non-photonic results (Table.~\ref{tab:final_nonphotonic}). The
2154: results of two independent analysis are in good agreement with
2155: each other.
2156:
2157: The ratio of the Photonic component to Non-Photonic component for
2158: Cocktail and Converter subtraction are plotted on
2159: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_np}.
2160:
2161: \begin{figure}[hb]
2162: \centering \epsfig{figure=./4/Fig_2.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
2163: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_np} Ratio of "Non-photonic" to
2164: "Photonic" electron invariant crossection for cocktail subtraction
2165: and converter subtraction methods. }
2166: \end{figure}
2167:
2168: \newpage
2169:
2170: \section{Systematic error analysis}\label{sec:ch4.Systematics}
2171:
2172: Systematic error analysis have always been the most critical issue
2173: for the experimentalist. The knowledge of the systematic error is
2174: based on a priory assumptions to the detector performance and
2175: quality of simulation. Systematic errors are the most important
2176: ingredient for current analysis as it uses the results of two
2177: completely uncorrelated measurements: (1) inclusive electron
2178: crossection measurement and (2) neutral and charged pion
2179: measurements for the cocktail input. The systematic errors in this
2180: case will be completely independent and need to be treated
2181: separately for the data and for the Cocktail.
2182: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.Inclusive_Systematics} summarize the total
2183: systematic error for the inclusive electron crossection,
2184: section~\ref{sec:ch4.Cocktail_Systematics} describes the
2185: contributions to the systematic error on the Cocktail prediction.
2186: Finally section~\ref{sec:ch4.Subtracted_Systematics} gives the
2187: final systematic error on the subtracted "Non-photonic" electron
2188: crossection.
2189:
2190: \subsection{Systematic error of the inclusive crossection}\label{sec:ch4.Inclusive_Systematics}
2191:
2192: For the inclusive electron crossection we need to evaluate the
2193: following contributions to the systematic error:
2194: \begin{itemize}
2195: \item eID cut error \subitem EMC matching cut systematic error
2196: \subitem $E/p$ cut systematic error \subitem Acceptance cut
2197: systematic error \item Hadronic background systematic error \item
2198: Correction function shape error \item Momentum scale systematic
2199: error \item Momentum resolution systematic error \item Acceptance
2200: MC$\leftrightarrow$Data systematic error \item ERT efficiency
2201: systematic error
2202: \end{itemize}
2203:
2204: \subsubsection{eID cut systematic errors}
2205:
2206: In order to estimate the systematic error on electron ID cuts,
2207: each eID cut was varied within reasonably large limits. Complete
2208: analysis was done using the modified cuts and the ratio of the new
2209: inclusive electron crossection to the reference one was treated as
2210: an estimator for the systematic error. This type of systematic
2211: errors estimation suffers in case of low statistics when statistic
2212: and systematic error can not be distinguished from each other. In
2213: order to avoid the double-counting of the statistical error, we
2214: always assume that relative systematic error is independent on
2215: $p_T$ and is derived as a systematic trend at low-mediate $p_T$
2216: range.
2217:
2218: \subsubsection{EMC matching cut systematic error}
2219:
2220: EMC matching cut was changed from target value of $|d_{EMC}| <
2221: 3.0$ to $|d_{EMC}| < 2.0,\ 2.5,\ 3.5,\ 4.0$ level. Correction
2222: functions, Hadronic background and inclusive crossection were
2223: recalculated appropriately for each of the new matching cuts. The
2224: ratio of $\bold{modified}$ inclusive electron distribution for
2225: different matching cut to the reference is shown in
2226: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.matching_sys}. One can see that most of the
2227: points at low-mediate $p_T$ are covered by 3\% systematic error
2228: band. At $p_T > 3$ GeV/c we can not make a conclusion due to
2229: limited statistics.
2230:
2231: \begin{figure}[h]
2232: \centering
2233: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/demc_sys.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip,trim
2234: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2235: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.matching_sys}
2236: Variation of inclusive electron crossection for different
2237: $d_{EMC}$ matching cut $|d_{EMC}| < 2.0,\ 2.5,\ 3.5,\ 4.0$.}
2238: \end{figure}
2239:
2240: \pagebreak
2241: \subsubsection{$E/p$ cut systematic error}
2242:
2243: To study the effect of $E/p$ cut we varied the cut value from
2244: $3.0\sigma$ to $2.0\sigma,\ 2.5\sigma,\ 3.5\sigma,\ 4.0\sigma$.
2245: Full analysis was repeated for each of the new cuts. The ratio of
2246: modified inclusive electron distribution for different $E/p$ cut
2247: to the reference is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.Ep_sys}. One can
2248: see that most of the points at low-mediate $p_T$ covered by 3\%
2249: systematic error band.
2250:
2251:
2252:
2253: \subsubsection{$Z$ cut systematic error}
2254:
2255: In order to estimate the error due to $|Z| < 75$ cm acceptance
2256: cut, $Z$ cut value was changed from 75 cm to 70 cm and 60 cm. The
2257: ratio of modified inclusive electron distribution for $Z$ cut of
2258: 70, 60 cm to the reference is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.zed_sys}.
2259: It is tough to estimate the trend of the ratio at high $p_T$, but
2260: assuming that it should be $p_T$ independent, 3\% level of
2261: systematic error seem to be a good estimate. It was also checked
2262: that other acceptance cuts (TZR and NTC "shadow" cuts
2263: Section~\ref{sec:ch4.acc_cuts}) does not seem to add any
2264: significant systematic error to the inclusive crossection.
2265:
2266: \begin{figure}[ht]
2267: \begin{tabular}{lr}
2268: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2269: \begin{flushleft}
2270: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/ep_sys.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2271: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2272: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.Ep_sys}
2273: Variation of inclusive electron crossection for different $E/p$
2274: matching cut $|E/p| < 2.0\sigma,\ 2.5\sigma,\ 3.5\sigma,\
2275: 4.0\sigma$.}
2276: \end{flushleft}
2277: \end{minipage}
2278: &
2279: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2280: \begin{flushright}
2281: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/zed_sys.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2282: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2283: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.zed_sys}
2284: Variation of inclusive electron crossection for different $Z$
2285: acceptance cuts $|Z| < 70,\ 60 cm$.}
2286: \end{flushright}
2287: \end{minipage}
2288: \end{tabular}
2289: \end{figure}
2290:
2291: \pagebreak
2292:
2293: \subsubsection{Hadronic background systematic errors}
2294:
2295: Hadronic background contribution to electron crossection is
2296: calculated under assumption that RICH has certain probability to
2297: "fire" on hadron (see Chapter~\ref{sec:ch4.hadr})
2298: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ep_hadrons} shows the $E/p$ distribution for
2299: inclusive electrons, all charged scaled by $\epsilon_{rand} =
2300: (3\pm1.5(sys))\cdot10^{-4}$ and "swapped" background. Substantial
2301: systematic error of 50\% was applied to this efficiency to take
2302: into account low statistics of random background and possible
2303: $p_T$ dependence of this parameter is applied to the random
2304: association efficiency. The effect of the efficiency variation
2305: ($\pm1 \sigma$) to the final inclusive electron crossection is
2306: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.hadr_sys}. The systematic error band
2307: can be fitted by functional form $\delta F / F =
2308: 0.51/(p_{T}-0.16)$ [\%].
2309:
2310: \begin{figure}[h]
2311: \centering
2312: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/hadr_sys.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2313: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2314: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.hadr_sys}
2315: Variation of inclusive electron crossection for different Random
2316: Hadronic background association efficiency ($\pm1 \sigma$).}
2317: \end{figure}
2318:
2319:
2320: \subsubsection{Correction function shape systematic errors}
2321:
2322: Correction function shape (see Section~\ref{sec:ch4.cf}) is
2323: limited by the total statistics of PISA single electron simulation
2324: sample. We need to make a reasonable assumption how the shape of
2325: this function looks like in case of high enough statistics. For
2326: this purpose we use $\bold{Fast\ Acceptance\ Simulator}$, simple
2327: MC code that simulates the $\bold{ideal}$ PHENIX acceptance by
2328: assuming straight tracks and realistic pattern of acceptance
2329: holes.
2330: %The Fast Simulator model is described in
2331: %Appendix~\ref{app:Fast_sim}.
2332:
2333: The major advantage of Fast Simulator is that it enables as to
2334: calculate the correction function $\epsilon_{reco\ Fast}(p_T)$
2335: without being limited by statistics. For the fast simulation we
2336: used $100\cdot 10^6$ simulated $e^{\pm}$ generated with the same
2337: initial assumption as in PISA single electron Simulation (this
2338: gives us a factor of 20 more statistics than PISA sample).
2339:
2340: \begin{itemize}
2341: \item Uniform azimuthal angle distribution $0<\phi<2\pi$ \item
2342: Uniform vertex $Z_{vtx}$ distribution $|Z_{vtx}|<25$ cm\item
2343: Uniform rapidity distribution $-0.6 <y< 0.6$ units \item Uniform
2344: $p_{T}$ distribution $0.0 <p_{T}< 5.0$ GeV/c
2345: \end{itemize}
2346:
2347: Full simulation, of cause, will be different from the ideal Fast
2348: Simulation by the reconstruction efficiency. We can assume the
2349: reconstruction efficiency to be $p_T$ independent to the first
2350: order. By calculating the correction function for Fast Simulator
2351: $\epsilon_{reco\ Fast}(p_T)$, scaling it by a constant
2352: reconstruction efficiency ($\epsilon_{MC\ rec} = 0.853$ see below)
2353: and comparing it with the PISA simulation of correction function
2354: $\epsilon_{reco}(p_T)$ prediction for electrons, positrons and
2355: total
2356: (Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.corr_function}~\ref{fig:ch4.corr_function_electrons}~\ref{fig:ch4.corr_function_positrons})
2357: we can obtain the systematic error on the shape of the correction
2358: function.
2359: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.fast_cf}~\ref{fig:ch4.fast_cf_electrons}~\ref{fig:ch4.fast_cf_positrons}
2360: shows the comparison of the correction function shape for Fast
2361: simulation and PISA simulation. There is a ~ 5 \% deviation of
2362: Fast simulator Correction function shape at $1 <p_T <2$ GeV/c
2363: region. Other then that, the shape of the correction seems to be
2364: in good agreement between two completely independent simulations.
2365: The difference between the correction functions is assigned as a
2366: systematic error on the correction function shape and shown in
2367: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.cf_sys}.
2368:
2369: \begin{figure}[ht]
2370: \begin{tabular}{lr}
2371: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2372: \begin{flushleft}
2373: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/cf_total.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2374: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2375: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.fast_cf}
2376: Comparison of correction function for Fast Simulator (points) and
2377: full PISA Simulation (line) for $e^{+} +e^{-}$.}
2378: \end{flushleft}
2379: \end{minipage}
2380: &
2381: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2382: \begin{flushright}
2383: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/cf_neg.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2384: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in}
2385: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.fast_cf_electrons}
2386: Comparison of correction function for Fast Simulator (points) and
2387: full PISA Simulation (line) for electrons.}
2388: \end{flushright}
2389: \end{minipage}
2390: \end{tabular}
2391:
2392: \begin{tabular}{lr}
2393: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2394: \begin{flushleft}
2395: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/cf_pos.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2396: = 0in 0in 0.5in 0.2in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.fast_cf_positrons}
2397: Comparison of correction function for Fast Simulator (points) and
2398: full PISA Simulation (line) for positrons.}
2399: \end{flushleft}
2400: \end{minipage}
2401: &
2402: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2403: \begin{flushright}
2404: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/syst_shape.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
2405: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.cf_sys}Relative difference between Fast Simulator and PISA simulation
2406: correction functions from Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.fast_cf}.}
2407: \end{flushright}
2408: \end{minipage}
2409: \end{tabular}
2410: \end{figure}
2411:
2412: \pagebreak
2413:
2414: \subsubsection{Momentum resolution and momentum scale systematic errors}
2415:
2416: Momentum scale systematic error accounts for possible difference
2417: of momentum resolution in Simulation and Data, it also includes
2418: the uncertainty of the absolute momentum measurement. Effect of
2419: the momentum resolution in MC Simulation and real data have
2420: already been discussed in Chapter~\ref{sec:ch4.cf}.
2421: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.cf_no_resol},~\ref{fig:ch4.cf_data_resol} shows
2422: the variation of the correction function due to the momentum
2423: resolution being varied in wide limits from 0\% to 1.48\%. The
2424: total extent of the variation gives a systematic error of 0.9 \%.
2425:
2426: \pagebreak
2427: \begin{figure}[ht]
2428: \begin{tabular}{lr}
2429: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2430: \begin{flushleft}
2431: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/ideal_cf.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
2432: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.cf_no_resol}
2433: Correction function calculated under assumption of ideal momentum
2434: measurement (solid curve) compared with final Correction function
2435: $\epsilon_{reco}(p_T)$ used in the analysis.}
2436: \end{flushleft}
2437: \end{minipage}
2438: &
2439: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2440: \begin{flushright}
2441: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/smeared_mom.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
2442: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.cf_data_resol}
2443: Variation of the Correction function due to smearing of the
2444: momentum resolution from $\sigma_{DCH} = 0.74 \%$ to $\sigma_{DCH}
2445: = 1.48 \%$ compared with final Correction function
2446: $\epsilon_{reco}(p_T)$ used in the analysis.}
2447: \end{flushright}
2448: \end{minipage}
2449: \end{tabular}
2450: \end{figure}
2451:
2452: Momentum scale systematic is much harder to evaluate, we need to
2453: make a reasonable assumption of how accurate we know the momentum
2454: of the track. This value depends on the accuracy of the magnetic
2455: field map representation used in reconstruction, quality of DCH
2456: calibration constants and alignment of the beam with respect to
2457: the center of the PHENIX coordinate system. The best estimate of
2458: the absolute momentum scale accuracy can be obtained from studying
2459: the mass of the proton peak in TOF acceptance. If we use the
2460: results for the mass of proton $m^2$~\cite{ana172}, there is a
2461: residual shift of the proton mass on the order of 1\% that is
2462: primarily due to the remaining momentum scale error. Assuming the
2463: accuracy of the momentum measurement to be 1\%, we can vary the
2464: momentum scale of the PISA Simulation to obtain the new correction
2465: functions corresponding to the mis-measured momentum. The ratio of
2466: this correction function to the original correction function will
2467: give as the systematic error associated with the momentum scale
2468: uncertainty shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.mom_scale_sys}.
2469:
2470: \pagebreak
2471: \begin{figure}[h]
2472: \centering
2473: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/mom_scale_sys.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip,trim
2474: = 0in 0.05in 0.5in 0.2in}
2475: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.mom_scale_sys}
2476: Variation of inclusive electron crossection due to 1\% absolute
2477: momentum scale uncertainty.}
2478: \end{figure}
2479:
2480:
2481:
2482: \subsubsection{Reconstruction efficiency systematic error}
2483:
2484: Reconstruction efficiency of Simulation and Data can be different,
2485: we need to study pure efficiency of tracking, $n0$ cut, EMC
2486: matching and $E/p$ cuts separately. As a reference we can select
2487: Fast Simulator prediction which simulate the ideal detector
2488: response\footnote{This assumption strongly relies on the exact
2489: match of the acceptances in full PISA Monte Carlo and Fast
2490: Simulator}.
2491:
2492: First, we look at the DCH track acceptance, requiring no matching
2493: to outer detectors (this is not exactly true as PISA simulation
2494: have an internal requirement to have at least one MC hit in EMC)
2495: our MC tracking efficiency will be slightly biased by EMC
2496: matching. We can compare $\phi_{EMC}$ distribution for DCH tracks
2497: which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.EMC_match_comp}. One can see
2498: that the efficiency that except for the area of EMC sector
2499: junction the shape of the EMC are in perfect agreement. The ratio
2500: of the FastSim/PISA is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_EMC_match}
2501: with a constant fit in good agreement region. From this fit we can
2502: conclude that tracking efficiency in Simulation is $\epsilon_{MC\
2503: track} = (0.949\pm0.004)$. From Run02 $p+p$ charged hadron
2504: analysis~\cite{ana276} we obtain an estimate for the tracking
2505: efficiency in Data $\epsilon_{Data track} = 0.982$. There may be
2506: an effect of tighter Z cut for the charged analysis ($|Z| < 50cm$)
2507: increasing the efficiency if it is \linebreak Z dependent but we
2508: neglect it and take the worst case scenario. The difference
2509: between those numbers is assigned to systematic error on tracking
2510: efficiency. $\delta\epsilon_{track} = 3.3\%$.
2511:
2512: \pagebreak
2513: \begin{figure}[ht]
2514: \begin{tabular}{lr}
2515: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2516: \begin{flushleft}
2517: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/phi_emc_noemc.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
2518: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.EMC_match_comp}
2519: Comparison of $\phi_{EMC}$ distribution for Fast simulation and
2520: PISA without any matching to outer detectors.}
2521: \end{flushleft}
2522: \end{minipage}
2523: &
2524: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
2525: \begin{flushright}
2526: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/ratio_fast_pisa_noemc.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip}
2527: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_EMC_match}
2528: Ratio of $\phi_{EMC}$ distributions from
2529: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.EMC_match_comp} fitted with constant. This ratio
2530: estimates tracking efficiency in Simulation.}
2531: \end{flushright}
2532: \end{minipage}
2533: \end{tabular}
2534: \centering
2535: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/ratio_fast_pisa_n0.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip}
2536: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_n0_match}
2537: Ratio of $\phi_{EMC}$ distributions after $n0 >1$ cut is applied
2538: fitted with constant. }
2539: \end{figure}
2540:
2541: $n0$ cut efficiency can be studied the same way.
2542: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_n0_match} shows the ratio of Fast
2543: Simulation to PISA $\phi_{EMC}$ distributions when $n0>1$ cut is
2544: applied. The fit to the ratio is equal to $\epsilon_{MC\
2545: n0>1}\cdot \epsilon_{MC\ track} = (0.886\pm 0.004)$ which gives us
2546: $\epsilon_{MC\ n0>1} = 0.934$. From $J/\psi$ Run02 $p+p$
2547: analysis~\cite{ana139} we have an estimate for $n0>1$ cut
2548: efficiency in Data $\epsilon_{Data\ n0>1} = (0.975\pm0.015)$.
2549: There is a 3.8\% difference between Data and MC which is applied
2550: as systematic error due to $n0$ cut efficiency.
2551:
2552: EMC matching and E/p cuts lower the reconstruction efficiency by
2553: another 3\% producing final $\epsilon_{MC\ rec} = 0.853$ but the
2554: systematic error of those cuts was already estimated. 3\% loss
2555: agrees with the amount of background removed by two $\pm3\sigma$
2556: cuts on normally distributed variables.
2557:
2558: \subsubsection{Acceptance systematic error}
2559: Acceptance systematic error takes into account possible
2560: difference between Simulation and Data representations of the
2561: acceptance. The $\phi$ acceptance of Simulation and MB Data sample
2562: was compared (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.comp_acc_mb}). The ratio
2563: of $\phi$ acceptances presented on
2564: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_acc_mb}.
2565:
2566: Two different regions in $\phi$ (shown in
2567: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_acc_mb}) were selected and the difference
2568: of the average ratios in those regions was assumed to be a
2569: systematic error $\delta_{acc} \approx 7\%$ on the acceptance
2570: variation between MC and Data. This value probably includes a
2571: significant amount of statistical error.
2572: \begin{figure}[h]
2573: \centering
2574: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/ratio_data_sim.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2575: = 0in 0.05in 0.5in 0.2in}
2576: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_acc_mb}
2577: Ratio of $\phi$ acceptance of Minimum Bias electrons and PISA
2578: simulation fitted in two $\phi$ regions shown in the plot.}
2579: \end{figure}
2580:
2581: \pagebreak
2582:
2583: \subsubsection{Run by bun systematic error}
2584:
2585: Run by run systematic error was evaluated by dividing the run
2586: period into two run groups with roughly equal statistics.
2587:
2588: \begin{itemize}
2589: \item {Run group I : $Run \# < 40100$} \item {Run group II: $Run
2590: \# > 40100$}
2591: \end{itemize}
2592:
2593: The ratio of final inclusive crossection for Run Group to a total
2594: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_run}. The systematic error of
2595: 4\% covers the ratio (at $p_T > 2.5$ GeV/c we run out of
2596: statistics and can not make any conclusion).
2597:
2598: \begin{figure}[h]
2599: \centering
2600: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/run_sys.eps,width=0.7\linewidth,clip}
2601: \caption{\label{fig:ch4.ratio_run} Variation of inclusive electron
2602: crossection for two separate run groups compared to total run
2603: statistics.}
2604: \end{figure}
2605:
2606: \subsubsection{Final systematic error to the inclusive
2607: crossection}
2608:
2609: Final systematic error, the squared sum of all previously listed
2610: components, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.final_inc_sys} and
2611: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:final_inc_sys}. One can see that in
2612: the total systematic error is almost constant for measured $p_T$
2613: range and can be approximately taken as a $\bold{constant\ 12\%}$
2614: throughout the whole $p_T$ range.
2615:
2616: \begin{figure}[t]
2617: \centering
2618: \epsfig{figure=./4/Systematics/total_sys.eps,width=0.85\linewidth,clip,trim
2619: = 0in 0.05in 0.5in 0.5in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.final_inc_sys}
2620: Total systematic error on the inclusive electron crossection.
2621: Separate contributions to the systematic shown in the plot. Total
2622: systematic is quadratic sum of individual components.}
2623: \end{figure}
2624:
2625: \begin{table}[h]
2626: \caption{ Components of the total systematic error on the
2627: inclusive crossection.} \centering
2628: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|}
2629: \hline Error source & Value [\%]& Figure\\
2630: \hline &&\\
2631: Total eID cut& $3.0\oplus 3.0\oplus3.0$&~\ref{fig:ch4.matching_sys}-~\ref{fig:ch4.zed_sys}\\
2632: Momentum Scale&$3.09+1.921\cdot ln(p_T)/p_T^{0.3485}$&~\ref{fig:ch4.mom_scale_sys}\\
2633: Hadronic contribution& $0.51/(p_T-0.16)$& ~\ref{fig:ch4.hadr_sys}\\
2634: MC to Data acceptance & 7.0& ~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_acc_mb}\\
2635: $n0>1$ cut & 3.8 & \\
2636: Tracking efficiency & 3.0& \\
2637: Correction function& $0.003047/p_T^{8.92}+4.588e^{-(p_T-1.252)^2/0.2} $& ~\ref{fig:ch4.fast_cf}\\
2638: Run-by-run variation & 4.0 & ~\ref{fig:ch4.ratio_run}\\
2639: &&\\
2640: \hline
2641: Total systematics & $\approx$ 12.0 & ~\ref{fig:ch4.final_inc_sys}\\
2642:
2643: \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:final_inc_sys}
2644: \end{table}
2645:
2646:
2647: \subsection{Systematic error of the Cocktail}\label{sec:ch4.Cocktail_Systematics}
2648:
2649: Systematic error on the Cocktail electron prediction consists of
2650: following contributions (errors listed from the most to the least
2651: significant):
2652: \begin{itemize}
2653: \item Systematic error on the input pion crossection
2654: \item Systematic error on Conversion/Dalitz ratio
2655: \item Systematic error on the meson/$\pi^0$ ratios
2656: \item Systematic error on Direct photon contribution
2657: \item Systematic error on Kaon $K_{e3}$ contribution
2658: \end{itemize}
2659:
2660: Total cocktail systematic is the quadratic sum of all separate
2661: contributions.
2662:
2663: \subsubsection{Input pion systematic error}
2664:
2665: To quantify the systematic error of the pion input (see
2666: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.pion_fit}) we move all neutral and charged pion
2667: data points up (down) by their individual systematic error and
2668: repeat the fit to obtain 1$\sigma$ error band for the pion input
2669: spectra. Full cocktails are calculated with the upper (lower)
2670: bounds of the pion input, and the difference to the optimum input
2671: crossection provides an estimate for the pion input related
2672: systematic uncertainty. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.pion_sys} shows the
2673: systematic error hi-lo band due to the uncertainty of the pion
2674: input.
2675:
2676: \begin{figure}[h]
2677: \centering
2678: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.15.eps,width=0.6\linewidth,clip,trim
2679: = 0in 0.1in 0.1in 0in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.pion_sys}
2680: Systematic uncertainty of the cocktail due to the uncertainty in
2681: the pion input spectra.}
2682: \end{figure}
2683:
2684: \subsubsection{Other light mesons systematic error}
2685:
2686: The systematic uncertainties of all cocktail ingredients were
2687: discussed in the sections above (see
2688: Table.~\ref{tab:part_ratios}). Just as for the pion input, the
2689: ratio of each meson to $\pi^0$ was evaluated at hi-lo band of the
2690: systematic uncertainty and the resulting ratio of modified
2691: cocktail to the final one gives a systematic error due to each
2692: contributing meson (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.meson_sys}). The
2693: largest systematic error of $\approx 3.5\%$ corresponds to
2694: $\eta$-meson contribution. Contributions from the $\eta'$,
2695: $\omega$, $\rho$, $\phi$ mesons are smaller then 1\%.
2696:
2697: \begin{figure}[h]
2698: \begin{tabular}{lr}
2699: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
2700: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.16.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2701: = 0in 0.1in 0.1in 0in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.meson_sys}
2702: Systematic uncertainty of the cocktail due to the uncertainty in
2703: the meson/$\pi^0$ ratios(see Table.~\ref{tab:part_ratios}).
2704: $\eta$, $\eta'$, $\omega$, $\rho$, $\phi$ contributions shown in
2705: different colors.}
2706: \end{minipage}
2707: &
2708: \begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth} \centering \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.17.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2709: = 0in 0.1in 0.1in 0in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.sys_uns_small}
2710: Systematic uncertainty of the cocktail due to the uncertainty in
2711: the contribution from photon conversions (light blue curve at
2712: about 4 \%), from weak kaon decays (green curve), and direct
2713: photons (dark blue curve)}
2714: \end{minipage}
2715: \end{tabular}
2716: \end{figure}
2717:
2718: \subsubsection{Conversion rate uncertainty}
2719:
2720: The systematics of the representation of PHENIX material in the
2721: simulation was studied in $\Au$ Run02~\cite{ppg035} by
2722: reconstructing the conversion pairs by the orientation with
2723: respect to the magnetic field. In our case this analysis seems
2724: unfeasible due to very low statistics of the conversion background
2725: in $\pp$ collisions. The conclusion from $\Au$ analysis is that
2726: the systematic error on the converter component is on the order of
2727: 10 \% independent of $p_T$. this translates to the error on the
2728: Cocktail of 4\% also independent of $p_T$ (shown in
2729: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.sys_uns_small}).
2730:
2731: \subsubsection{Kaon decay uncertainty}
2732:
2733: The systematic uncertainty from weak kaon decays, in general, is
2734: tiny and is relevant at low $p_{T}$ only, if at all, as shown in
2735: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.sys_uns_small}.
2736:
2737: \subsubsection{Direct photon uncertainty}
2738:
2739: The systematic uncertainty from direct photons increases with
2740: increasing $p_{T}$ and becomes significant only at the highest
2741: $p_{T}$ covered in this measurement as shown in
2742: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.sys_uns_small}.
2743:
2744: \subsubsection{Total cocktail systematic uncertainty}
2745:
2746: The total uncertainty on the cocktail is calculated as a quadratic
2747: sum of all contributions and shown in
2748: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.sys_uns_total}. One can see that it is slightly
2749: falling with $p_T$ from $13 \%$ to $10 \%$.
2750:
2751: \begin{figure}[h]
2752: \centering
2753: \epsfig{figure=./4/Cocktail/fig_3.18.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim
2754: = 0in 0.1in 0.1in 0in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.sys_uns_total}
2755: Total systematic error on the cocktail.}
2756: \end{figure}
2757:
2758: \pagebreak
2759:
2760: \subsection{Systematic error of the subtracted crossection}\label{sec:ch4.Subtracted_Systematics}
2761:
2762: Total systematic error on the data was calculated as a squared sum
2763: of relative contributions to the inclusive and the cocktail. The
2764: final "Non photonic" electron spectrum with the corresponding
2765: systematic error band is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4.sys_final} and
2766: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:final_nonphotonic}.
2767:
2768: \begin{figure}[h]
2769: \centering
2770: \epsfig{figure=./4/sys_total.eps,width=1\linewidth,clip,trim = 0in
2771: 0.1in 0.1in 0in} \caption{\label{fig:ch4.sys_final} Total
2772: systematic error on the "Non-photonic" electron invariant
2773: crossection.}
2774: \end{figure}
2775: