1: %% @(#) $Id: analysisDescrXihong.tex,v 1.17 2000/03/28 09:26:46 cole Exp $
2: %
3: % Xihong:
4: % This section should discuss the hit-position reconstruction
5: % (1 sentence) the resulting resolution of the TPC. It should briefly
6: % discuss track and
7: % vertex finding (2-3 sentences). A discussion of the decay vertex
8: % reconstruction procedure should follow and take 5-6 sentences
9: % including cuts. We will not have the space for your decay topology
10: % figure so you will have to find words to describe the cuts. Then
11: % you should describe the dE/dx cuts and electron rejection cuts.
12: % Finally you should summarize the event selection cuts you applied
13: % and the interaction cuts. You might include a statement about the
14: % beam-triggered events and the fraction passing interaction cuts.
15: % You should summarize the characteristics of the invariant mass
16: % spectra (resolution, S/B) and comment on the problem at small
17: % opening angles. You should then discuss the background subtraction
18: % procedure and your determination of the yield as a function of y, mt.
19: % You should describe the acceptance determination procedure in one or
20: % two sentences and describe the procedure used to combine triggers
21: % and calculate differential cross-sections. Finally, you should
22: % describe the mt fit procedure.
23: %
24: %% Log Message: $Log: analysisDescrXihong.tex,v $
25: %% Log Message: Revision 1.17 2000/03/28 09:26:46 cole
26: %% Log Message: Commit remaining changes before submission
27: %% Log Message:
28: %% Log Message: Revision 1.16 2000/03/20 20:35:11 cole
29: %% Log Message: Mod's for nominal final draft
30: %% Log Message:
31: %% Log Message: Revision 1.15 2000/02/29 10:08:44 cole
32: %% Log Message: Nearly last edit of paper
33: %% Log Message:
34: %% Log Message: Revision 1.14 2000/02/23 23:52:47 xhyang
35: %% Log Message: *** empty log message ***
36: %% Log Message:
37: %% Log Message: Revision 1.13 2000/02/15 22:18:05 xhyang
38: %% Log Message: *** empty log message ***
39: %% Log Message:
40: %% Log Message: Revision 1.12 2000/01/20 19:30:02 cole
41: %% Log Message: Finished full draft of paper
42: %% Log Message:
43: %% Log Message: Revision 1.11 2000/01/19 21:09:52 xhyang
44: %% Log Message: *** empty log message ***
45: %% Log Message:
46: %% Log Message: Revision 1.10 2000/01/19 20:31:53 xhyang
47: %% Log Message: Add people's comments
48: %% Log Message:
49: %% Log Message: Revision 1.9 2000/01/15 19:07:43 cole
50: %% Log Message: Updates on Jan 15
51: %% Log Message:
52: %% Log Message: Revision 1.8 1999/12/14 05:47:32 xhyang
53: %% Log Message: *** empty log message ***
54: %% Log Message:
55: %% Log Message: Revision 1.7 1999/10/13 13:40:57 xhyang
56: %% Log Message: *** empty log message ***
57: %% Log Message:
58: %% Log Message: Revision 1.6 1999/08/19 20:32:06 cole
59: %% Log Message: Major update to text of paper
60: %% Log Message:
61: %% Log Message: Revision 1.5 1999/07/07 22:30:22 xhyang
62: %% Log Message: update
63: %% Log Message:
64: %% Log Message: Revision 1.4 1999/07/07 21:57:35 xhyang
65: %% Log Message: More new text and use defined macro
66: %% Log Message:
67: %% Log Message: Revision 1.3 1999/07/07 17:02:11 xhyang
68: %% Log Message: update
69: %% Log Message:
70: %% Log Message: Revision 1.2 1999/05/26 16:51:22 xhyang
71: %% Log Message: Initial version
72: %% Log Message:
73:
74: %TPC hit positions were obtained by fitting the time dependence of pulses
75: %recorded in the flash ADC's and performing a charge-weighted average of
76: %transverse pad positions.
77: %
78: After finding and fitting the recorded pulses in the TPC we obtained
79: typical resolutions of 0.7~mm (vertical) and 0.5~mm (horizontal) for
80: position measurements in each sample. The momentum resolution for
81: particles bending in the 0.5~T magnetic field varied from 1.2\% ($p <$
82: 2~GeV/c) to 5.5\% ($p \sim$ 17~GeV/c). The \dedx{} measurement, obtained from
83: a truncated-mean of the TPC samples on each track, provided a
84: resolution of \sig{}$/$\avgdedx{} $= 6\%$ for typical track lengths.
85: \Lam{}'s and \Ks{}'s were measured and identified through a combination of
86: topological reconstruction and \dedx\ identification of the decay
87: daughters. We paired and removed conversion electrons and positrons,
88: the dominant source of background, with an efficiency of $\approx 50\%$.
89: %The dominant source of backgrounds under the \Lam{} and \Ks{} peaks result
90: %primarily from mis-identified electrons and positrons; $\approx{}
91: %50\%$ of this background was removed through reconstruction and
92: %removal of $e^+e^-$ conversion pairs
93: %%%%\cite{Wie92:Coulomb-effect}.
94: We further reduced background from conversions and from false vertices by
95: applying tighter geometric cuts to small opening-angle pairs.
96: We attempted topological fits on $+$/$-$ track pairs satisfying
97: applied geometric and \dedx\ cuts and accepted as $\rm V_0$ candidates those
98: passing applied \chisq\ cuts with origin $\geq 3.5~cm$ from the target.
99: %by requiring that
100: %small opening-angle pairs have at least one of the daughter tracks not
101: %associated with the primary vertex and by rejecting decays with one of
102: %the daughter tracks had lab polar angles $\theta > 70^\circ$.
103: %
104: We used a combined likelihood from the single track \dedx's and
105: hypothetical \ppim{} and \pippim{} invariant masses (\Minv) of the
106: pairs to identify the decaying particle, obtaining the \Minv{}
107: distributions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lamKsAccept}. We obtained mass
108: resolutions of FWHM=4~MeV, 13~MeV for \Lam{}'s and \Ks{}'s,
109: respectively and corresponding S/B ratios of 35:1 and 30:1. The
110: acceptances were calculated via GEANT simulations of the detector
111: response to 20M pure \Lam\ and 10M pure \Ks\ decays
112: \cite{accept_note}. We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:lamKsAccept} the
113: $y-p_\perp$ regions with $> 10\%$ acceptance. For the centrality
114: measurement, we identified as ``grey'' tracks protons and deuterons in
115: the momentum ranges [0.25,1.2]~GeV/c and [0.5,2.4]~GeV/c,
116: respectively. We obtain the multiplicity of grey tracks, \Ngrey,
117: within our geometric acceptance event-by-event and from this quantity
118: estimate the mean number of collisions suffered by the beam proton,
119: \Avgnungrey, using an established technique \cite{Che99:Slow-Proton}.
120:
121: The data presented in this paper resulted from a combined 4.65M
122: triggers. We required a valid event to have at least one
123: secondary charged particle in the final state and a
124: $\Sigma p_\perp > 85$~MeV/c. In addition, we vetoed one and two-track events
125: containing a high-momentum positive track consistent with a
126: quasi-elastically scattered proton. After applying quality and the
127: above interaction cuts we obtained 2.97M events, 1.88M
128: minimum-bias and 2.07M central. From these,
129: we reconstructed a total of 156.8k \Lam's and 76.8k \Ks's. Using
130: beam-triggered events we determined trigger efficiency corrections
131: %
132: %\markcut{generated uniformly in rapidity and with an exponential fall-off in \mtmo{}
133: %with an inverse slope of 150~MeV, in GEANT-based Monte Carlo
134: %simulation with the same cuts used in data analysis. }
135: %
136: as a two-dimensional function of charged-particle multiplicity and
137: \Ngrey{}. The correction for multiplicity 1,2 events with $\Ngrey=0$ is large
138: ($5.1$) while the average correction for all interactions is $1.1$.
139:
140:
141:
142:
143:
144:
145:
146: