1:
2: \section{Track selection and reconstruction efficiency corrections}\label{sec:analysistracks}
3:
4: %This section describes the criteria for the selection of secondary tracks to be used in the
5: %analysis and presents the associated inefficiencies that must be accounted for in
6: %determining the absolute cross-sections.
7:
8: \subsection{Event selection}\label{sec:event}
9:
10: Protons are identified in the T9 beam at 8.9~\GeVc exactly as in the
11: 12.9~\GeVc data set and as described in reference \cite{ref:alPaper}.
12: Two threshold Cherenkov detectors (BCA and BCB) placed in the beam line are used to select protons by requiring
13: a value consistent with the pedestal in both detectors.
14: The beam Cherenkov pulse height distributions for the 8.9 \GeVc beam are shown in
15: Fig. \ref{fig:beamckov}. Protons were selected by requiring a pulse height less than 120 counts in both detectors, and
16: Fig. \ref{fig:beamtof} shows the time-of-flight distributions of those beam tracks
17: identified as protons and pions by the Cherenkov selection. The beam time-of-flight system is made of
18: two identical scintillator hodoscopes, TOFA and TOFB, recuperated from the previous NA52 experiment and a
19: small target-defining trigger counter (TDS). TOFA-TOFB and TOFA-TDS measure time differences over a distance of
20: 21.4 m and 24.3 m, respectively. We see in Fig. \ref{fig:beamtof} that the two time peaks are consistent with the proton
21: and pion hypotheses at 8.9 \GeVc.
22:
23: Only events with a single reconstructed beam track in the four beam
24: multi-wire proportional chambers (MWPCs) and no signal in the
25: beam halo counters are accepted. This MWPC track is used to determine the impact position and angle
26: of the beam particle on the target. A time measurement in one of three
27: beam timing detectors consistent with a beam particle is also required
28: for determining the arrival time of the proton at the target, $t_0$.
29: This $t_0$ is necessary for calculating the time-of-flight
30: of secondary particles.
31: %--
32: \begin{figure*}[ht]
33: \begin{center}
34: \includegraphics[width=17cm,height=5cm]{plots/beam_ckov_all.eps}
35: \caption{\label{fig:beamckov}
36: Beam Cherenkov pulse height distributions. BCA in the left panel, BCB in the middle, and BCB \emph{vs.} BCA in the right panel. The electron
37: and pion tagging efficiency is found to be close to 100\%; the peaks are separated by $\approx 3\sigma$ in both detectors. By requiring a
38: value compatible with a pedestal in both Cherenkov detectors the beam protons are clearly separable from pions and electrons
39: as seen in the right panel.}
40: \end{center}
41: \end{figure*}
42: %--
43: \begin{figure}[ht!]
44: \begin{center}
45: \includegraphics[width=9cm,clip=true,trim=0.4cm 0cm 0cm 0cm]{plots/beam_tof.eps}
46: \caption{\label{fig:beamtof}
47: Beam time-of-flight distributions. The time difference between
48: TOFA and TOFB is shown in the left panel. The right panel is
49: the
50: time difference between TOFA and the TDS. The shaded
51: distributions are for particles identified as protons by the
52: Cherenkov detectors
53: as described in the text. The open histograms are all other beam
54: tracks: pions, electrons and muons from pion decays.}
55: \end{center}
56: \end{figure}
57: %--
58:
59: The full set of criteria for selecting beam protons for this analysis is as follows:
60: \begin{itemize}
61: \item ADC count less than
62: 120 in both beam Cherenkov A and beam Cherenkov B
63: \item time measurement(s) in TOFA, TOFB and/or TDS which are needed for
64: calculating the arrival time of the beam proton at the target, $t_0$
65: \item extrapolated position at the target within a 10~\mm radius of the center of the target
66: \item extrapolated angle at the target less than 5 mrad
67: \item no signal in the beam halo counters
68: \end{itemize}
69:
70: Prior to the above cuts, for data taken with a nuclear target, a downstream trigger in the forward trigger plane (FTP)
71: was required to record the event.\footnote{empty target data sets are recored with an unbiased trigger setting since
72: these samples are used to calibrate the experimental apparatus and not just in
73: the empty target subtraction for cross-section measurements.}
74: The FTP is a double plane of scintillation counters
75: covering the full aperture of the spectrometer magnet except a 60 mm central hole for allowing
76: non-interacting beam particles to pass. The efficiency of the FTP is
77: measured to be $>$99.8\%.
78:
79: Using the FTP as an interaction trigger necessitates an additional set of unbiased,
80: pre-scaled triggers for absolute normalization of the
81: cross-section. Beam protons in the pre-scale trigger sample (1/64 of the total trigger rate for the 8.9 \GeVc Be
82: data set) are subject to exactly the same selection
83: criteria as FTP trigger events allowing the
84: efficiencies of the selections to cancel and adding no additional
85: systematic uncertainty to the absolute normalization of the result. These unbiased events are
86: used to determine the $N_{\mathrm{pot}}$ used in the cross-section formula and listed in Table \ref{tb:be5events}.
87: The number of protons-on-target is known to better than 1\%.
88:
89: Applying these criteria we are left with the event totals summarized in Table \ref{tb:be5events}.
90:
91:
92: \subsection{Secondary track selection}\label{sec:track}
93:
94: %Secondary track selection criteria have been optimized to ensure the
95: %quality of the momentum reconstruction as well as a clean time-of-flight
96: %measurement while maintaining a high reconstruction efficiency.
97: The following criteria have been applied to select tracks in the forward spectrometer for the
98: accepted events:
99: %--
100: \begin{itemize}
101: \item a successful momentum reconstruction using downstream track
102: segments in NDC modules 2, 3, 4 or 5 and the position
103: of the beam particle at the target as an upstream constraint
104: (here, \emph{up}stream and \emph{down}stream are relative to the
105: spectrometer magnet);
106: \item a reconstructed vertex radius ({\em i.e.} the distance of the
107: reconstructed track from the $z$-axis in a plane perpendicular to
108: this axis at $z=0$) $r \ \leq$ 200 \mm;
109: \item number of hits in the road around the track in NDC1 $\geq$ 4
110: and average $\chi^2$ for these hits with respect to the track in
111: NDC1 $\leq$ 30
112: (this is applied to reduce non-target interaction backgrounds);
113: % \item the average $\chi^2$ for hits with respect to the track in
114: % NDC1 $\leq$ 30.
115: \item number of hits in the road around the track in NDC2 $\geq$ 6
116: (this is applied to reduce non-target interaction backgrounds);
117: \item a matched TOFW hit passing the quality cuts described in
118: Sec. \ref{sec:tofhitselect};
119: \item reconstructed angles are within the fiducial volume to be used
120: for this analysis, $-$210~mrad $\leq \theta_{x} \leq$ 0~mrad and
121: -80~mrad $\leq \theta_{y} \leq$ 80~mrad.
122: \end{itemize}
123: %--
124: These cuts are identical to those used in the analysis of the p-Al data except for the
125: reconstructed vertex radius $\leq200$ \mm cut. It was found that due to a feature of the algorithm
126: this additional requirement improved the momentum resolution considerably at reconstructed momenta below $\approx$1.5 \GeVc.
127:
128: Applying these cuts to reconstructed tracks in accepted events we are
129: left with 95,897 total good tracks in the beryllium thin target data
130: set as listed in Table \ref{tb:be5events}.
131: % The efficiency of this
132: %selection is greater than 95\% as described in detail in Sec. \ref{sec:reconEff} below.
133: %--
134: %\vspace{0.5cm}
135:
136: \input{tables/event_selection_table}
137:
138: %\subsection{Sources of tracking inefficiency}\label{sec:efficiencies}
139: %There are two separate sources of tracking inefficiency which are
140: %considered. The reason for separating them, as will be made clear,
141: %is the ability to calculate one from the data directly and the need to use the Monte Carlo for the other.
142: %The distinction is basically
143: %this: the efficiency for reconstructing the track including a time-of-flight hit
144: %\emph{given that the particle traversed the entire detector}
145: %versus the fractional loss of particles created in the target
146: %\emph{before traversing the entire detector due to absorption and decay.}
147: %The former can be computed from the data themselves, while the latter is taken from a Monte Carlo simulation.
148:
149: \begin{figure*}[!htb]
150: \begin{center}
151: \includegraphics[width=11.5cm]{plots/tracking_efficiency_p_theta_x.eps}
152: \includegraphics[width=5.75cm]{plots/tracking_efficiency_theta_y.eps}
153: \caption{\label{fig:trackEff} Tracking efficiency for positive particles traversing
154: the detector using the target as upstream track constraint as a function of particle
155: momentum (upper left), production angle in the horizontal plane, $\theta_x$ (upper right), and
156: production angle in the vertical plane, $\theta_y$ (lower).
157: The $\theta_{y}$ plane is orthogonal to the spectrometer bending plane and not sensitive to the momentum
158: dependent acceptance, and the bottom panel shows the purest measure of the average
159: track reconstruction efficiency within the fiducial volume to be 96\%--97\%.}
160: \end{center}
161: \end{figure*}
162:
163: \subsection{Track reconstruction efficiency}\label{sec:reconEff}
164:
165: The track reconstruction efficiency has been measured from the data exactly as described in \cite{ref:alPaper}.
166: The efficiency is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:trackEff}. The effects of the two changes in track reconstruction are
167: evident in the efficieny curves. First, the efficiency is now flat and $\approx 97$\% above
168: 2 \GeVc due to the improvement in the $\chi^2$ minimization done as part of the tracking algorithm.
169: Second, the loss of efficiency at momenta below 1.5 \GeVc
170: is due to the reconstructed vertex radius $\leq200$ \mm cut discussed above.
171: But, as before, the tracking efficiency can be
172: measured from the data themselves, so the systematic error on the correction comes only from the statistical uncertainty in
173: the sample used to calculate the correction. As in the p-Al publication, the 12.9 \GeVc aluminum data and the 8.9 \GeVc
174: beryllium data have been combined to minimize this uncertainty.
175: The drop in efficiency at large, positive values of $\theta_x$ is due to geometric acceptance as low momentum tracks are
176: bent out of the spectrometer missing the downstream chambers. The present analysis is performed using
177: tracks in the range $-0.210 \ \rad \leq \theta_x \leq 0 \ \rad$ where the acceptance is flat in momentum.
178: %The track reconstruction efficiency can be measured from the data by exploiting two facts as described fully in \cite{ref:alPaper};
179: %first, the redundancy of detectors downstream of the spectrometer magnet and, second, the multiple possibilities for an upstream
180: %constraint in the extraction of track parameters. The interaction vertex is well defined using the MWPC extrapolation of the beam
181: %particle and the fact that the target is only 20.46 mm in thickness. This acts as one possible constraint on the upstream track segment.
182: %%(called VERTEX2 tracks in the analysis).
183: %The other independent upstream constraint comes from the forward drift chamber module, NDC1 in Fig. \ref{fig:harpDet}.
184: %%(called VERTEX4 tracks)
185: %Using samples of well reconstructed tracks of one type, one can measure the efficiency for the other reconstruction method.
186: %The efficiency to reconstruct a track for a particle traversing the detector using the target constraint method
187: %is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:trackEff}.
188: %greater than 95\% and very flat when geometric
189: %acceptance is accounted for, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:trackEff}.
190:
191: \subsection{Absorption, decay and tertiary track corrections}\label{sec:absorption}
192:
193: %In order to identify particles in the forward spectrometer, we require a reconstructed 3-momentum as well as
194: %an associated time-of-flight measurement. The quality criteria for a kinematic measurement and the associated inefficiencies
195: %are discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:track}, and the selection of time-of-flight hits and its efficiency will be addressed
196: %in Sec. \ref{sec:tofhitselect}.
197:
198: The correction for absorption and decay refers to secondary particles created in the nuclear target that
199: never make it to the time-of-flight wall for detection and possible identification. Figure \ref{fig:harpDet} shows the location
200: of the time-of-flight scintillator wall just beyond the back plane of drift chamber modules NDC3, NDC4 and NDC5.
201: %Using the forward detector alone this
202: %correction is impossible to estimate from the data themselves.
203: %Efforts are currently underway to measure the absorption rates
204: %from the data using the large angle TPC in combination with the forward chambers. A result from this analysis will
205: %reduce the associated systematic error on the cross-section measurement presented here. In the meantime,
206: We use the Monte Carlo simulation
207: to determine the size of the correction and the result is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:absorption}.
208: Note this is an upward adjustment to the raw yield measured and is
209: implemented as $1/(1-\eta^{absorb}(p,\theta_{x},\theta_{y},\alpha))$ in Eq. \ref{eq:finalxsec}. The absorption correction
210: (which includes pion decays) is a function of $\theta_{x}$ and $\theta_{y}$ because it depends on the amount and type
211: of physical material a particle passes through, thus the geometry of the detector. It is a function of $\alpha$ because
212: of the different interaction cross-sections and possible decay rates of hadrons.
213: This correction is separated from the tertiary
214: correction discussed below because it does not depend on event multiplicity, kinematics or other details of the
215: hadron production model used in the simulation, but only the total interaction cross-sections
216: which are significantly more certain. In fact, the relevant cross-sections are typically known to $\approx10$\% and we
217: assume this uncertainty on the absorption correction just as in the p-Al publication. Because the correction is of order 30--40\% for pions,
218: the average systematic error contribution to the cross-section turns out to be 3.6\%.
219: %--
220: \begin{figure*}
221: \begin{center}
222: \includegraphics[width=17cm,height=5.5cm]{plots/absorption_decay_rates.eps}
223: \caption{\label{fig:absorption}
224: Absorption corrections for pions and protons according to Monte Carlo simulation as a function of particle
225: momentum (left), production angle in the horizontal plane, $\theta_x$ (center) and production angle in
226: the vertical plane, $\theta_y$ (right).
227: }
228: \end{center}
229: \end{figure*}
230: %--
231:
232: The tertiary correction refers to the subtraction of reconstructed tracks which are actually reconstructions
233: of tertiary particles, \emph{i.e.} particles produced in inelastic interactions or decays of true secondary particles
234: and not in primary interactions of 8.9 \GeVc protons with beryllium nuclei (See section \ref{sec:xsec}). The tertiary subtraction includes muons
235: created in decays which are falsely identified as pions nearly 100\% of the time due to their high $\beta$.
236: The correction is significantly smaller than the absorption correction (compare Figs. \ref{fig:absorption} and \ref{fig:tertiary}),
237: but is less certain, so the contribution to the systematic error is non-negligible.
238: This tertiary subtraction is also generated using the Monte Carlo simulation but \emph{is} dependent on the details of the
239: hadron production model used in the simulation. Most of the material where tertiary
240: particles might be produced in the detector is carbon, so it is the simulation of inelastic interactions of low-energy protons and
241: pions in carbon that become important in generating this correction. Previously this correction was assumed to be 100\%
242: uncertain, but comparisons of low momentum HARP p+C, $\pi^{+}$+C and $\pi^{-}$+C data to the hadronic models used in the simulation
243: have verified these models to $\approx 50$\% and allowed us to lower the systematic error on this correction. Fig. \ref{fig:tertiary}
244: shows the average size of the correction to the \piplus yield to be about 4\% (2\% $\pi^{+}$ + 2\% $\mu^{+}$),
245: so the average systematic error on the cross-section coming from the subtraction of tertiaries ends up being 1.8\%.
246: %--
247: \begin{figure*}
248: \begin{center}
249: \includegraphics[width=17cm,height=5.5cm]{plots/tertiary_rates_binary_forced.eps}
250: \caption{\label{fig:tertiary}
251: Tertiary particle rates for pions, muons (which get identified as pions) and protons according to Monte Carlo simulation
252: as a function of particle
253: momentum (left), production angle in the horizontal plane, $\theta_x$ (center) and production angle in
254: the vertical plane, $\theta_y$ (right).}
255: \end{center}
256: \end{figure*}
257:
258: