1: % -*- TeX -*-
2: %
3: % nchAnalysis.tex
4: %
5: \chapter{Analysis of Charged Hadron Spectra}
6: \label{ch:nchAnalysis}
7: \section{Event-wise Studies}
8: In this section we delineate the relevant parts of the analysis
9: that was performed to obtain the multiplicity distribution. This
10: is also the baseline for any other analysis.
11:
12: \subsection{Trigger and event selection}
13: We use the ZDC and the CTB for triggering. All the runs that we
14: used for this analysis were recorded with a minimum bias trigger,
15: with no pre-scale. The minimum bias trigger consisted of a
16: coincidence requirement between the East and West ZDC's. This
17: trigger proved to be better than 99\% efficient. At the beginning
18: of the run, however, this had yet to be established. The main
19: concern was that there might be an inefficiency in this trigger
20: for the most central collisions, where very few spectator nucleons
21: remain to produce a coincidence in the calorimeters. Therefore, a
22: high CTB signal, indicative of a high multiplicity in the
23: mid-rapidity region, was used as an additional trigger condition.
24: The ZDC trigger thresholds were set such that a single nucleon
25: hitting the calorimeter would generate an acceptable signal. The
26: CTB threshold was set to accept the highest $\sim 30\%$
27: multiplicities.
28:
29: \begin{figure}[htb]
30: \centering
31: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{plots/triggerP00hm.eps}
32: \caption[The ZDC \vs\ CTB Trigger Signal]
33: {The ZDC (sum of East and West calorimeters)
34: signal is plotted \vs\ the corresponding
35: CTB signal. The most central events have the highest CTB signal (high multiplicity)
36: and a low ZDC signal (very few spectator neutrons).}
37: \label{fig:zdcvsctb}
38: \end{figure}
39:
40: A plot of the ZDC \vs\ CTB trigger signals for a subset of the
41: events used in this analysis is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:zdcvsctb}.
42: The peripheral collisions are in the lower left corner, where both
43: the CTB signal and the sum of the East and West ZDC signals are
44: small. This is indicative of low multiplicity at mid-rapidity and
45: a scarce number of dissociation neutrons. In the collider
46: geometry, neither the excited nucleus nor the dissociation protons
47: reach the calorimeters because their trajectories are bent by the
48: beam optics. As the overlap of the colliding nuclei (\ie\ the
49: \textit{centrality}) increases, more neutrons reach the
50: calorimeters and the ZDC signal increases. Likewise, the
51: multiplicity at mid-rapidity increases. After a certain point, the
52: collision is sufficiently central that few neutrons reach the ZDC
53: while the multiplicity continues to increase. The ``boomerang''
54: shape observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:zdcvsctb} is therefore the result
55: of the correlation between impact parameter $b$ and multiplicity
56: on the CTB side, and of a dual behaviour on the ZDC side:
57: correlation between $b$ and number of neutrons at high impact
58: parameter, and anti-correlation for central collisions.
59:
60: An important input into this analysis is the \textit{hadronic
61: cross section} in \AuAu, \sigmahad. This value is necessary to
62: normalize the multiplicity distribution. The calculated value is
63: $\sigmahad$ = 7.2 barn from Eq.~\ref{eq:TaaSigmaAuAu}, but it is
64: desirable to have a measurement confirming this expectation. The
65: trigger requirement of a ZDC coincidence is not only sensitive to
66: the hadronic cross section, but also to the mutual Coulomb
67: dissociation of the two Au nuclei. In this process, there will be
68: a pair of correlated forward- and backward-going neutrons, but no
69: measurable tracks in the mid-rapidity region. The ZDC's therefore
70: are sensitive to the sum of the hadronic + mutual Coulomb
71: dissociation cross sections, which we denote by $\sigma_{xn,xn}$,
72: \ie\ the cross section in which at least one neutron is detected
73: in each ZDC detector. Since the same ZDC's are used in all
74: interaction zones at RHIC, this combined cross section can be
75: measured by all 4 RHIC experiments independently. The STAR
76: preliminary result, measured by the van der Meer scan technique
77: \cite{zhangbu:00} is $\sigma_{xn,xn} = 8.9 \pm 0.3_{\mathrm{stat}}
78: \pm 0.7_{\mathrm{sys}}$ barn. This value has also been measured in
79: an independent analysis by the RHIC accelerator crew
80: \cite{drees:01}. The value reported in a calculation
81: \cite{baltz:98} is $\sigma_{xn,xn} = 10.9 \pm 0.6$ barn, and seems
82: to be outside of the allowed range of the systematic uncertainty
83: in the measurements. Attempts to resolve this discrepancy are
84: underway. In order to arrive at a measured hadronic cross
85: section, \sigmahad, it is also necessary to disentangle the
86: contributions from the hadronic and the Coulomb processes. Since
87: a $\ppbar$ inelastic collision at \sqrts\ = 130 \gev\ produces on
88: average $\sim 2.4$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:multScalingRootS}) charged
89: particles per unit pseudorapidity at mid-rapidity and we expect to
90: identify the vertex for hadronic events, to first order this
91: fraction can be measured as
92: \begin{equation}
93: \label{eq:fractionCrossSectionMeasurement}
94: \frac{\sigmahad}{\sigma_{xn,xn}} =
95: \frac{\mathrm{Events\ with\ Vertex}}{\mathrm{Total\ Triggered\ Events}}
96: \end{equation}
97:
98: This simple ratio must be corrected for the vertex-finding
99: efficiency and acceptance that reduce the counts in the numerator
100: and for backgrounds such as beam+gas that generate a trigger and
101: are therefore counted in the denominator. The vertex finding
102: efficiency is important in this analysis and for the determination
103: of the shape of the \hminus\ multiplicity distribution at low
104: multiplicity.
105:
106: \subsection{Vertex Acceptance}
107:
108: The vertex reconstruction for the summer 2000 run was undertaken
109: essentially up to the limits of the TPC acceptance, \ie\
110: $|\zvertex| < 2$ m where \zvertex\ denotes the position of the
111: primary vertex along the $z$ direction parallel to the beam.
112: Although it is possible to try to obtain a vertex as long as there
113: are tracks in the TPC, this was not pursued for the following
114: reasons. If an event occurred outside of this region, the TPC sees
115: only the forward- or the backward-going particles. This also has
116: the disadvantage of reducing the accuracy of the vertex
117: determination, since the $z$ position of tracks going
118: perpendicular to the beam axis contribute significantly to the
119: determination of the vertex. In addition, the CTB in this case is
120: not triggered on multiplicity at mid-rapidity, but rather on
121: multiplicity forward or backward of mid-rapidity with all tracks
122: having a large dip angle. To avoid these systematic effects, the
123: vertex finder was set to abort when it determined that the vertex
124: lay outside the TPC limits.
125:
126: Due to the large size of the beam diamond, the standard deviation
127: of the vertex Z position was $\sim$ 100 cm. This results in valid
128: collision events, even at high multiplicity, without a vertex
129: determination. In addition, in order to keep a flat acceptance for
130: tracks with $|\eta| < 0.5$, we restricted the multiplicity
131: analysis to events with a vertex between $\pm 95$ cm, about a $\pm
132: 1 \sigma$ cut. To correct for the vertex acceptance, we assume
133: that the distribution is Gaussian and from the fit parameters
134: estimate the fraction of events that lie outside our acceptance
135: cut. As an example, the $\zvertex$ distribution for 10K triggered
136: events from one of the runs taken in September 2000 is shown in
137: Fig.~\ref{fig:zvtx}.
138: \begin{figure}[htb]
139: \centering
140: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{plots/zvtx1248015.eps}
141: \caption[The \zvertex\ distribution for 10K triggered events.]
142: {Distribution of reconstructed vertex $z$ positions, \zvertex, for 10,000 triggered
143: events. The limits of the TPC are at $\pm$2 m from the center.
144: The acceptance for events used in the multiplicity analysis was placed
145: at $\pm 95$ cm.}
146: \label{fig:zvtx}
147: \end{figure}
148:
149: For the distribution in Fig.~\ref{fig:zvtx}, the acceptance
150: correction factor is 1.57. Analyzing more runs for a total of 166K
151: triggered events, we find an acceptance correction factor of 1.68,
152: (a $\pm 1\sigma$ cut for a Gaussian distribution would yield a
153: correction of 1.46, so our cut is tighter). With the vertex
154: efficiency and acceptance correction, we can then determine the
155: numerator in Eq.~\ref{eq:fractionCrossSectionMeasurement}. For
156: the denominator, we must estimate the backgrounds to our
157: minimum-bias trigger.
158:
159:
160: \subsection{Vertex Efficiency}\label{sec:vertexEfficiency}
161:
162: We know that our offline vertex reconstruction is not 100\%
163: efficient, therefore we need to correct for this effect when
164: measuring the multiplicity distribution. The vertex reconstruction
165: is based on tracing the path of reconstructed tracks back to a
166: common space point. Since tracking is done first, before finding
167: the vertex there is no \textit{a priori} knowledge of which tracks
168: are primary and which ones are not. The vertex-finding therefore
169: depends on all \textit{global tracks} (Sec.
170: ~\ref{sec:globalTracking}) found in the event. We will then
171: characterize the efficiency as a function of the number of global
172: tracks (\Nglobal) in the event. The vertex-finding efficiency
173: (\effvtx) affects mainly the low multiplicity events. The reason
174: is that these events provide the vertex-finding algorithm with
175: very little information to work with, \ie\ very few global tracks.
176: We find that for events with more than $\sim 100$ global tracks,
177: the efficiency is $\sim 100\%$. To confirm the findings based on
178: software, a visual analysis of $\sim 100$ events was performed,
179: with a resulting lower bound on the efficiency for events with
180: \Nglobal\ = 100 of \effvtx\ > 98\%.
181:
182: The more important part is the efficiency at low \Nglobal. To get
183: a handle on this number, we used \Hijing\ events generated with
184: large impact parameter $b$ = 12 - 20 fm. At these impact
185: parameters, \Hijing\ should be a reasonable model, since basically
186: only geometry and the $pp$ cross section play a role and nuclear
187: specific effects are not expected to influence the results. These
188: events were then processed through the STAR reconstruction chain
189: and a record was kept of the number of events generated and
190: whether the vertex was or was not found for each event. In this
191: way, we obtain a plot of the vertex efficiency correction factor
192: (1/\effvtx). The correction depends on \Nglobal\ and is
193: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:vtxeffcorr}.
194: \begin{figure}[htb]
195: \centering
196: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{plots/corrections_vs_nglobtot.eps}
197: \caption[Vertex efficiency correction vs. \Nglobal]
198: {Vertex finding efficiency correction factor as a function of the
199: number of global tracks, \Nglobal.}
200: \label{fig:vtxeffcorr}
201: \end{figure}
202:
203: To take this correction into account in the \hminus\ multiplicity
204: distribution, the correction in Fig.~\ref{fig:vtxeffcorr} was used
205: as a weight for each event depending on the number of global
206: tracks. Since the \hminus\ multiplicity distribution refers to
207: negative primary tracks instead of global tracks, this correction
208: affects primarily the region \Nhminus\ < 5 and is negligible
209: beyond \Nhminus\ = 10. These are the first two bins of the final
210: distribution. However, most of the cross section is found in
211: these bins, and the shape of the distribution is sensitive to
212: these values at low multiplicity. To figure out what is the
213: fraction of the hadronic cross section that we actually see, we
214: proceed as follows. We choose events within a $\pm 95$ cm range
215: along the $z$ axis of the beam direction. We can then count the
216: the raw number of events with vertex in our multiplicity
217: distribution. We compare this to the number of vertex events
218: corrected for efficiency, \ie\ to the number of events in the
219: multiplicity distribution appropriately weighted with the
220: correction from Figure~\ref{fig:vtxeffcorr}. From these two
221: numbers, we see that the fraction of the hadronic cross section
222: available to the offline analysis is $94.9 \pm 0.5\ \pm 4\ \%$ of
223: \sigmahad, where the systematic uncertainty comes from the
224: uncertainty in the estimation of the vertex efficiency at the
225: lowest multiplicities based on the simulations.
226:
227:
228: \subsection{Trigger backgrounds}
229: We now focus on estimating the contribution to the events in the
230: denominator in Eq.~\ref{eq:fractionCrossSectionMeasurement} that
231: are not part of the total $\sigma_{xn,xn}$ cross section, e.g.
232: beam-gas events. However, knowing which events are background so
233: that we can take them out of our total trigger sample, is not
234: trivial.
235:
236: To investigate this issue, we focus on events for which the vertex
237: was not found. To study systematic effects and variations, from
238: the September data, we used specific minimum bias runs with good
239: statistics, and stable detector operation. The run with the most
240: statistics in this period has $\sim$ 77K events (the events in
241: Fig.~\ref{fig:zvtx} is from this sample). This was used along with
242: a few other runs to compare backgrounds and other systematic
243: effects.
244:
245: For these background studies, we compared 4 runs with different
246: luminosity conditions spread over several weeks. Two of these
247: (August 2000 data) had intensities in RHIC which were about a
248: factor of 3 lower than in the other two (September 2000) runs. We
249: are interested in the different intensities because the hadronic
250: interaction rate grows as the product of the intensity in each
251: beam, while the beam+gas background grows only as the sum. This
252: type of background should then have a different contribution in
253: runs with differing beam intensities.
254:
255: To illustrate the difference between the events with and without
256: vertex, a plot of the trigger information from 10K events from one
257: of the runs is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:triggerVtxNoVtx} Events with
258: a reconstructed vertex are shown in the left panel; the right
259: panel illustrates the trigger signals for events without a
260: reconstructed vertex.
261: \begin{figure}[htb]
262: \centering
263: \mbox{\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/trigger1248015_10KevtsWithVtx.eps}}\quad
264: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/trigger1248015_10KevtsNoVtx.eps}}}
265: \caption[Trigger signal for events with and without a reconstructed vertex.]
266: {The trigger signal for events with a valid reconstructed vertex
267: (a) shows the expected shape. There are additional event
268: classes that show up when plotting the trigger signal for events
269: without a reconstructed vertex (b).}
270: \label{fig:triggerVtxNoVtx}
271: \end{figure}
272:
273: For events in Fig.\ref{fig:triggerVtxNoVtx}(a), we see again the
274: very clean ``boomerang'' band. These represent valid hadronic
275: events for the determination of \sigmahad. For the events without
276: a reconstructed vertex, there are several regions to understand.
277: The events which lie in the ``boomerang'' are most likely good
278: events that did not have a vertex because the collision occurred
279: outside the bounds of the TPC, where the acceptance of the offline
280: vertex finder terminates. This does not present a problem.
281: However, in the 2001 run a cross check will be done using timing
282: in the ZDC's. There are two other regions that are most probably
283: background and have been the subject of further scrutiny:
284: \begin{itemize}
285: \item ZDC < 30 (low ZDC region)
286: \item ZDC $\sim$ 80 (mid ZDC region)
287: \end{itemize}
288:
289: Both of these regions have events whose trigger signals extend
290: along the CTB axis. If the multiplicity is increasing for these
291: events, we should see also an increase in the number of global
292: tracks. The same thing is found if we plot the ZDC signal \vs\
293: \Nglobal for the events with and without vertex, shown in
294: Fig.~\ref{fig:zdcNglobal}.
295:
296: \begin{figure}[htb]
297: \centering
298: \mbox{\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/zdcnglobalvtx.eps}}\quad
299: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/zdcnglobal.eps}}}
300: \caption[ZDC \vs\ \Nglobal\ for events with and without a reconstructed vertex.]
301: {The ZDC signal \vs\ the number of global tracks for events with a valid reconstructed vertex
302: (a) and without one (b). The same structure as in Fig.~\ref{fig:triggerVtxNoVtx} is
303: seen, indicating that there is definitely an increased number of
304: charged tracks in the detector for the events in the two regions
305: outside the ``boomerang''.}
306: \label{fig:zdcNglobal}
307: \end{figure}
308:
309: We see that there are events that have $\sim$ 1000 global tracks,
310: do not have a reconstructed vertex and lie in a different region
311: than the normal hadronic events.
312:
313: We studied the characteristics of these two bands to try to
314: understand their origin. We investigated other differences between
315: these bands and the rest of the ``good'' triggers to shed light on
316: their nature. We expect that in the region \Nglobal $\leq 1$ most
317: of the events are of electromagnetic origin. In any case, there
318: can be no vertex reconstructed for events with less than 2 tracks.
319: By selecting non vertex events with \Nglobal>1 we focus on the
320: possible backgrounds the we're aiming to understand.
321:
322: We find that the band at low ZDC has both East and West ZDC
323: triggers just above threshold, and the band in the mid ZDC region
324: has one of the calorimeters just above threshold and the other one
325: high. For the ZDC $\sim 80$ region, this is just the opposite
326: behaviour than is seen in the events with a found vertex, where
327: the ZDC signal is relatively symmetric between East and West
328: ZDC's. It is possible that a beam+gas event could generate such an
329: asymmetric ZDC signal with some charged tracks seen in the TPC.
330: Asymmetries in tracking were also found, but this can also
331: indicate simply an interaction outside the TPC volume. Several
332: hypotheses were proposed, but there was insufficient information
333: to unambiguously discern the nature of the background. In
334: particular, we would like to know its contribution to the region
335: where the valid events lay. Without this knowledge, we can remove
336: only the background contribution outside the ``boomerang'' region.
337: We can therefore only produce a lower limit on the fraction in
338: Eq.~\ref{eq:fractionCrossSectionMeasurement}. The numerator
339: depends on the efficiency and acceptance corrections already
340: discussed. For the purpose of the calculation of the fraction, we
341: used events within $\pm 2$ m to reduce the acceptance correction
342: ($6\%$). For the denominator, we start with the total triggers.
343: The background is obtained via the number of events without vertex
344: that have 1 or more global tracks. Since some of these events are
345: valid events that were not found because of efficiency or
346: acceptance, we need to subtract the number of events we added to
347: our numerator due to these two corrections from the background
348: estimate. This is a lower bound since we don't take into account
349: the background for events without global tracks. From 10K events
350: from the low luminosity runs and from 15K events from the high
351: luminosity runs we obtain
352:
353: \begin{eqnarray}
354: \mathrm{Low}\ \mathcal{L} & : & \frac{\sigmahad}{\sigma_{xn,xn}}
355: \geq 70.0 \pm 0.7\ \%
356: \nonumber \\
357: \mathrm{High}\ \mathcal{L} & : & \frac{\sigmahad}{\sigma_{xn,xn}}
358: \geq 73.5 \pm 0.6\ \% \ .
359: \label{eq:fractionCrossSectionLowBound}
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: The errors are statistical, which is enough to compare the two
362: numbers since they were obtained in the same way. We can see
363: that there is a difference beyond statistical. However, this was
364: expected as the low-luminosity runs systematically have a greater
365: background contribution that our procedure does not account for.
366: For the high-luminosity sample, this background is reduced and the
367: lower limit on the fraction is higher. Using the fraction from
368: the high-luminosity events and the current measured value for
369: $\sigma_{xn,xn} = 8.9 \pm 0.5$ barn, we obtain a lower limit on
370: the hadronic cross section $\sigma_{\mathrm{AuAu}} \gtrsim 6.5$
371: barn, consistent with the calculated value of 7.2 barn. There
372: should be an error of $\pm 0.4$ barn in this estimate which comes
373: basically from the cross section measurement (the statistical
374: error on the fraction is much smaller). This error in turn is
375: dominated by the uncertainty in the measurement of the beam
376: currents in the RHIC ring, which is on the order of 3\%. The
377: systematic uncertainty on the fraction is the only missing piece,
378: but as discussed, at this point we can only give a lower bound.
379:
380: It is clear that with only the ZDC and CTB information at the
381: lowest multiplicities, it becomes increasingly difficult to
382: separate the background events such as beam+gas collisions. It
383: would therefore be of great advantage to obtain an estimate of the
384: interaction point without having to rely on tracking, but rather
385: on trigger signals, \eg\ on timing between the arrival of the East
386: and West ZDC signal. In addition, improved phase space coverage
387: for the trigger would drastically reduce uncertainties in the
388: background estimates and help to provide a more complete topology
389: of the valid low multiplicity hadronic events. For the 2001 run
390: ZDC timing will be implemented; and starting with the 2001 $pp$
391: run, additional detectors in the form of scintillator slats
392: covering from the pseudorapidity region $2 < |\eta| < 4$ will be
393: part of the STAR trigger as well. For the analysis of the
394: multiplicity distribution presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:Multiplicity}
395: we will use the calculated value of the \AuAu\ hadronic cross
396: section of $\sigmahad = 7.2$ barn for the normalization.
397:
398: To obtain the multiplicity distribution, one has to obtain the
399: corrected number of negative hadrons for every event. The
400: analysis done here relies on tracking. We first obtain a raw
401: $dN/d\pt d\eta$ distribution as a function of $\eta$ and \pt\ for
402: every event. Then several corrections are applied to this raw
403: distribution as discussed in the next section. Finally, the
404: corrected $dN/d\pt d\eta$ distribution is integrated in the range
405: $|\eta|<0.5$, $0.1 < \pt < 2\ \gevc$ to obtain a corrected
406: multiplicity. One can therefore also obtain \pt\ and $\eta$
407: distributions with this procedure. Since the algorithm relies on
408: tracking corrections, we now turn our attention to this subject.
409:
410: \section{Tracking Studies}\label{sec:trackingCorrections}
411:
412: Particle production was studied through the yield of primary
413: negative hadrons, which are mostly \piminus\ with an admixture of
414: \kminus\ and \pbar. The \hminus\ distribution includes the
415: products of strong and electromagnetic decays. Negatively charged
416: hadrons were the main focus of the work in order to exclude
417: effects due to participant nucleons which would show up in the
418: positively charged hadron sample. Charged particle tracks
419: reconstructed in the TPC were accepted for this analysis if they
420: fulfilled requirements on number of points on the track and on
421: pointing accuracy to the event vertex.
422:
423: The main goal of this analysis is to determine the corrected yield
424: of primary particles coming from the collision. What we have in
425: the final state are measured tracks, both primary and secondary,
426: in our detectors. There are several losses and backgrounds that
427: need to be corrected: acceptance, decay losses, track
428: reconstruction efficiency, contamination due to interactions in
429: material, misidentified non-hadrons, and the products of weak
430: decays. The appropriate corrections were obtained mainly by use
431: of the embedding technique. Backgrounds were determined by either
432: fully simulated events or by direct measurement when possible. All
433: corrections were calculated as a function of the uncorrected event
434: multiplicity. The corrections used in the determination of the
435: final spectra are obtained in the following order:
436: \begin{dingautolist}{192}
437: \item Geometrical acceptance and decay losses\spacing{.5}
438: \item Reconstruction efficiency
439: \item Track merging
440: \item Momentum resolution
441: \item Track splitting
442: \item Electron background
443: \item Weak decay and secondary interaction background
444: \item Ghost tracks
445: \end{dingautolist}\spacing{1.2}
446: We now discuss the most important corrections in more detail.
447:
448: \subsection{Acceptance}
449: The acceptance correction takes care of two different things. What
450: we really focus on here is whether or not a charged particle makes
451: a measurable signal in the detector such that it is possible to
452: reconstruct it afterwards. If the charged particle does not
453: deposit energy in any sensitive volume of the detector, it will be
454: lost. This is the more common definition of the geometrical
455: acceptance. In addition, a charged particle may also leave no
456: signal if it decays in flight before it reaches the detector. In
457: the STAR Monte Carlo simulation implemented for this work, these
458: two losses were taken into account simultaneously by adopting the
459: following definition of acceptance: a track is accepted if it
460: leaves at least 10 Monte Carlo hits in the TPC. The
461: reconstruction code then at least has the possibility to find the
462: track. This correction can be calculated in a full Monte Carlo
463: simulation and also using embedding, and should be completely
464: independent of the event multiplicity. There should be a
465: dependence on particle type, as the decay characteristics are
466: included in our definition. This is illustrated in
467: Fig.~\ref{fig:acceptance}.
468: \begin{figure}[htb]
469: \centering
470: \mbox{\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/acceptancePiHML.eps}}\quad
471: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/acceptancePiKPH.eps}}}
472: \caption[Acceptance Correction]{The acceptance correction for the \hminus\ analysis. Left panel:
473: \piminus\ acceptance for 3 multiplicity selections. Right panel: Acceptance for \piminus\, $K^-$ and
474: $\bar{p}.$}\label{fig:acceptance}
475: \end{figure}
476: The left panel is the acceptance for negative pions in three
477: multiplicity bins. The numbers correspond to the mean raw
478: negatively charged multiplicity ($\langle \hminus
479: \rangle_{\textrm{raw}}$) in each of the 3 bins: $\langle \hminus
480: \rangle_{\textrm{raw}} = 223$ for the high multiplicity, $\langle
481: \hminus \rangle_{\textrm{raw}} = 152$ for medium, and $\langle
482: \hminus \rangle_{\textrm{raw}} = 33$ for the low multiplicity bin.
483: The plot shows that the correction is essentially independent of
484: the multiplicity, except perhaps at the lowest \pt. The right
485: panel is the acceptance for the three particle species which make
486: up the \hminus\ distribution. We see that the $K^-$ acceptance is
487: lower than that for the pions, which is expected since $c\tau =
488: 3.7$ m for kaons, and it is 7.8 m for \piminus.
489:
490: The acceptance is on average 90\% for tracks within the fiducial
491: volume having $\pt>200$ \mevc. We see that the acceptance rapidly
492: drops at low \pt. For the \hminus\ analysis, we accept tracks
493: which have $0.1 < \pt\,< 2$ \gevc\ and $|\eta|<1.0$. This
494: accounts for the majority of the produced particles at
495: mid-rapidity, as we find the yield beyond \pt\ = 2 \gevc\ to be
496: only 1\% of the total yield. A motivation to go as low in \pt\ as
497: possible was driven by the fact that for 2001 the magnetic field
498: would be set to the design operating value of 0.5 T for the bulk
499: of the data taking, instead of the 0.25 T used in 2000. This
500: raises the low-\pt\ acceptance of the TPC, so essentially the 2000
501: data would give us access to the lowest \pt. Nevertheless, to
502: study systematic effects the multiplicity analysis was carried out
503: three times with various low-\pt\ cutoffs: \pt>0 (no cutoff, large
504: systematics expected), \pt>0.1 \gevc\ and \pt>0.2 \gevc\ yielding
505: consistent results.
506:
507: \subsection{Tracking Efficiency}
508: \label{sec:efficiency} Once a track has made it into the detector,
509: we focus on the question of how likely it is to be found by the
510: offline software chain. The reconstruction efficiency was
511: determined by embedding simulated tracks into real events at the
512: raw data level, reconstructing the full events, and comparing the
513: simulated input to the reconstructed output. This technique
514: requires a precise simulation of isolated single tracks, achieved
515: by a detailed simulation of the STAR apparatus based on GEANT and
516: a microscopic simulation of the TPC response discussed in
517: Chapter~\ref{ch:DetectorSimulation}. The multiplicity of the
518: embedded tracks was limited to 5\% of the multiplicity of the real
519: event in the same phase space as the simulated data, thereby
520: perturbing the real event at a level below the statistical
521: fluctuations within the event sample. Fig.~\ref{fig:efficiency}
522: shows the reconstruction efficiency obtained from embedding as a
523: function of \pt\ for a slice at mid-rapidity.
524: \begin{figure}[htb]
525: \centering
526: \mbox{\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/efficiencyPiHMLhm.eps}}\quad
527: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/efficiencyPiKPHhm.eps}}}
528: \caption[Reconstruction Efficiency \vs\ \pt.]{The reconstruction efficiency for the \hminus\ analysis. Left panel:
529: \piminus\ efficiency for 3 multiplicity selections. Right panel: Efficiency for \piminus, $K^-$ and
530: $\bar{p}$ at high multiplicity.}\label{fig:efficiency}
531: \end{figure}
532: The tracking efficiency varies depending on \pt\ and the
533: multiplicity of the event. For the lowest multiplicity events, the
534: \piminus\ efficiency is $\gtrsim 95\%$ in the region \pt\ > 400
535: \mevc. Going to the high multiplicity events degrades the
536: efficiency to $\sim 80\%$. However, since the difference between
537: the multiplicities in the high and low bins is about a factor of
538: 7, a reduction of only $\sim 15\%$ in the efficiency is a
539: significant achievement for the offline reconstruction. In
540: general, for all multiplicities and all 3 particle species, in the
541: region $\pt > 200$ \mevc\ we always have an efficiency greater
542: than 80\%.
543:
544: The pseudorapidity dependence of the tracking efficiency for
545: \piminus\ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:efficiencyEta}.
546: \begin{figure}[htb]
547: \centering
548: % \includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{plots/effEta.eps}
549: \includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{plots/efficiencyCompEta5Eta8.eps}
550: \caption[Reconstruction Efficiency \vs\ $\eta$.]{The \piminus\ reconstruction efficiency
551: as a function of pseudorapidity. Two different vertex selections are shown, illustrating
552: the influence of the choice of vertex on the efficiency due to the detector geometry.}
553: \label{fig:efficiencyEta}
554: \end{figure}
555: The two data sets in the figure are for selections of events with
556: vertex $z$ position, \zvertex, within $\pm 95$ cm (blue points)
557: and $\pm 20$ cm (red points) of the center of the TPC. The wide
558: vertex cut allows us to use most of the available data. The
559: interest in studying such variations in efficiency lies in the
560: observation that a particular phase space region, for a given
561: vertex position, will be measured in a different region of the
562: detector. For example, tracks with $\eta$
563: > 0.5 will not cross all the available padrows in the TPC when the
564: vertex is in a position \zvertex\ > 95 cm. This is reflected as a
565: drop in the efficiency. By making a tighter \zvertex\ cut, one
566: can probe a wider phase space region with the guarantee that
567: tracks have the chance to cross all TPC padrows. For a vertex cut
568: of |\zvertex| < 20 cm, tracks within $|\eta|<0.8$ will cross the
569: entire TPC, and one can see a higher efficiency for these tracks
570: in the figure (red points).
571:
572: Furthermore, even when tracks cross the entire TPC, we also expect
573: a variation in efficiency for a given $\eta$ slice as a function
574: of the vertex position. This arises from diffusion effects, as a
575: track crossing the detector in the region near the central
576: membrane will produce space points that must drift across the
577: entire chamber, and their clusters will be wider than those for
578: tracks near the pad plane. We can test the adequacy of our
579: detector simulation by studying the raw and corrected yield in a
580: given $\eta$ bin as a function of the vertex position, and hence
581: as a function of the position of the track in the detector. In
582: addition, since the TPC volume is separated into two identical
583: halves separated at $z=0$ and set up such that the ionization
584: drifts toward the wires (located at $\pm 2.1$ m), the behaviour
585: for a given choice $\eta$ and \zvertex\ should be the same as for
586: $-\eta$ and $-\zvertex$. This is illustrated in
587: Fig.~\ref{fig:etavtxRaw} which shows the raw $\eta$ distribution
588: for 10 cm slices in the choice of \zvertex\ interval: [20, 30] cm,
589: [80, 90] cm; and the corresponding symmetric \zvertex\ selections
590: [$-30$, $-20$] cm and [$-90$, $-80$] cm.
591: \begin{figure}[htb]
592: \centering
593: \mbox{\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/etavtx20_30.eps}}\quad
594: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/etavtx80_90.eps}}}
595: \caption[Raw yield dependence on \zvertex.]{Raw yield dependence on
596: \zvertex. The left panel is for the vertex choice [20, 30] cm
597: (red) and [$-30$, $-20$] cm (blue), right panel is for the
598: interval [80, 90] cm (red) and [$-90$, $-80$] cm (blue).
599: Dashed lines in the bottom panels represent tracks with $\eta = \pm 0.5$,
600: corresponding to the limits given by the vertical dashed lines in the top panels.}
601: \label{fig:etavtxRaw}
602: \end{figure}
603: The top panels show the raw distributions as a function of $\eta$,
604: left for the [20, 30] cm interval and right for the [80, 90] cm
605: region. In the bottom panel a sketch of the detector geometry is
606: given, as a slice in the $r$ and $z$ coordinates of the TPC
607: cylinder. The central membrane is at $z=0$, the drift distance is
608: 2.1 m from the membrane to the wires. The first pad row at 60 cm
609: and the last pad row at 200 cm. The lines in this panel represent
610: the trajectories of tracks originating from the given vertex
611: position at $\eta=\pm 0.5$. We can see that there are significant
612: systematic variations in the raw yield depending upon where the
613: event happened. As expected, the raw yield begins to decrease
614: significantly once tracks do not cross the entire TPC. Such
615: systematics must be taken into account in the efficiency
616: corrections.
617:
618: Since the corrected yield we report must be independent of any
619: detector effects, it is easier to study the adequacy of the
620: corrections by focusing on a single $\eta$ bin and comparing the
621: raw and corrected yield for the bin as a function of the vertex
622: position. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:etavtxCorr}
623: \begin{figure}[htb]
624: \centering
625: \mbox{\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/etacorrvsvtx08.eps}}\quad
626: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/etacorrvsvtx15.eps}}}
627: \caption[Corrected yield dependence on \zvertex.]
628: {Raw and corrected yield for $-0.3<\eta<-0.2$ (left) and $0.4<\eta<0.5$(right) as a function
629: of \zvertex. Data points in each of the upper plots correspond to tracks crossing the detector
630: region illustrated schematically in the lower plots.}
631: \label{fig:etavtxCorr}
632: \end{figure}
633: which shows the raw and corrected yields for two choices of
634: $\eta$, $-0.3<\eta<-0.2$ (left) and $0.4<\eta<0.5$ (right), as a
635: function of \zvertex. The lower panel shows the geometry of the
636: relevant tracks as they cross the detector for the different
637: vertex positions. The steps in \zvertex\ were done in 10 cm bin
638: sizes between $\pm 100$ cm (20 bins), and 4 wider bins with limits
639: $[-190, -140],\ [-140, -100],\ [100, 140],\ [140, 190]$ in order
640: to get enough statistics (see the \zvertex\ distribution,
641: Fig.~\ref{fig:zvtx}). We again see that there are systematic
642: effects in the raw yield. We can identify two general trends. For
643: tracks that do not cross the entire TPC, the yield drops rapidly.
644: For the remaining tracks, the raw yield is the lowest for tracks
645: closest to the central membrane and increases as the tracks get
646: closer to the pad planes on either side of the TPC. For reference,
647: a fit to the raw data assuming a constant yield is done (black
648: points) with a resulting poor $\chi^2$; 6.8 (left) and 8.8
649: (right). The corrected yield is essentially free of \zvertex\
650: systematics, except for two cases. In the events closest to the
651: edges of the TPC, where the acceptance is varying rapidly and most
652: of the tracks in the event lay outside the TPC, the tracks that do
653: not cross the entire TPC show a corrected yield that is lower than
654: the rest. This is expected, as tracks with very little
655: information left in the detector will be difficult to reconstruct.
656: We also found an additional systematic effect in the efficiency
657: correction traced back to the simulation of tracks crossing the
658: central membrane. This effect causes a slight over correction of
659: the yield for such tracks, as can be seen by the corrected yield
660: for these tracks which is coloured differently in the figure.
661: Therefore, to prevent these systematic effects from appearing in
662: the final pseudorapidity distribution, we included only events
663: within $\pm 100$ cm of the center of the TPC, excluded tracks
664: going through the membrane, and excluded tracks which did not
665: cross the entire TPC. Each data point in the final \hminus\
666: pseudorapidity and \pt\ distributions is then obtained as the
667: average of each of the $\sim 20$ independent measurements of the
668: corrected yield obtained for each of the \zvertex\ bins.
669:
670: Since the most important correction for \pt\ spectra and yields is
671: the efficiency, this is where we concentrated a large fraction of
672: the studies of systematic effects. The systematic uncertainty due
673: to the corrections was estimated in two ways. In order to ensure
674: consistency of the results, we studied the variation in the final
675: spectra due to a large variation in the track quality cuts. The
676: distributions of the cut variables are given in
677: Fig.~\ref{fig:dcaFitPts} from both data and simulations; the left
678: panel shows the distance of closest approach distribution and the
679: right panel shows the number of fit points distribution. We varied
680: the selection based on number of fit points from 10 to 24 and the
681: selection based on distance of closest approach from 3 cm to 1 cm.
682: These choices are labelled ``cut 1'' and ``cut 2'' in the figure.
683: \begin{figure}[htb]
684: \centering
685: \mbox{\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/DcaTrsAndData1k.eps}}\quad
686: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/FitPointsTrsAndData.eps}}}
687: \caption[Distance of closest approach and Fit point distributions.]
688: {Comparisons of the distance of closest approach (a) and number of fit points (b) distributions
689: for simulated and real data.}
690: \label{fig:dcaFitPts}
691: \end{figure}
692: The different corrections for the more stringent set of cuts (cut
693: 2) were then recalculated. The final multiplicity distribution
694: obtained in both cases was compared and they were in agreement to
695: $\sim 1\%$. To study the sensitivity to the cuts a small variation
696: in the track quality cuts was then made, accepting tracks with 23
697: fit points. A corrected spectrum using the correction factors
698: calculated for tracks with 24 fit points was then applied. This
699: yields then a corrected distribution that is systematically higher
700: than the measured value, as one is then over-correcting the raw
701: data. The yield at high multiplicity obtained via this systematic
702: effect was found to be 6.4\% above the measured yield. This is
703: the main contribution to the systematic uncertainty in the total
704: particle yield for the analysis presented here.
705:
706: \subsection{Backgrounds}
707: Instrumental backgrounds due to photon conversions and secondary
708: interactions with detector material were estimated using the
709: detector response simulations mentioned above, together with
710: events generated by the \Hijing\ model \cite{hijing:91,hijing:94}.
711: The simulations were calibrated using data in regions where
712: background processes could be directly identified. The measured
713: yield also contains contributions from the products of weak
714: decays, primarily \kzeros, that were incorrectly reconstructed as
715: primary tracks that must also be accounted for in the background
716: correction. Figure~\ref{fig:background} (left panel) illustrates
717: \begin{figure}[htb]
718: \centering
719: \mbox{
720: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/backgroundHML.eps}}\quad
721: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plots/electronsDataHijingCentral.eps}}}
722: \caption[Background corrections \vs\ \pt.]
723: {Background correction to the \hminus\ spectrum coming from weak decays and secondary
724: interactions in the detector material (a) and electrons (b) as a function of \pt.
725: The corrections were obtained
726: via \Hijing\ events processed through the STAR offline simulation and reconstruction chain.
727: }
728: \label{fig:background}
729: \end{figure}
730: the background fraction of the raw signal coming from secondary
731: interactions and decays. The shape of the background correction
732: is independent of multiplicity. We see that the hadronic
733: background is approximately 15\% at \pt\,= 100 \mevc, decreasing
734: with increasing \pt\ to a constant value of $\sim 7\%$. The
735: average fraction of hadronic background tracks in the uncorrected
736: sample is 7\%. The error on the background correction increases
737: with \pt\ because statistics are limited, but there is also a
738: systematic uncertainty associated with this correction. Since the
739: background depends on the yields of various particles, in
740: particular \kzeros\ and $\bar{\Lambda}$, differences between the
741: model and the data will systematically affect the correction. An
742: estimate of the background correction at \pt\ = 2 \gev\ assuming
743: the ratios $\bar{\Lambda}/\pbar \sim 0.8$ and $\pbar/\piminus \sim
744: 1$ would yield a value of $\sim 1.15$ instead of $1.07$. This is
745: the main source of systematic uncertainty in the hadronic
746: background correction.
747:
748: The right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:background} shows the electron
749: background obtained from \dedx\ data (filled points) and from
750: \Hijing\ simulations (hollow points). The shape of the electron
751: background is exponential, so we can use the shape and normalize
752: to the data in order to obtain the final electron correction.
753: Since the slope of the exponential can affect the final slope of
754: the \pt\ distribution, we can also do a correction using the
755: \Hijing\ points to study the variation in the \pt\ spectrum. We
756: find that the choice of the slope in the electron correction
757: changes the corrected value of \meanpt\ by 10 \mevc\ and is the
758: main contribution to the systematic uncertainty of the
759: determination of \meanpt.
760:
761: \subsection{Comparison of TPC Halves and Sector ($\phi$) Dependence}
762: From the design of the TPC, the tracking volume is essentially
763: divided into two independent halves and it is not \textit{a
764: priori} obvious that one can combine them without introducing
765: systematic effects. Therefore, one of the necessary studies in the
766: evaluation of the reliability of the results is to compare the raw
767: yields in the different halves. However, one has to be careful in
768: this comparison to isolate the possible differences. Because of
769: the design of the TPC, we expect to see differences in the raw
770: yields even within the same half of the TPC simply due to an
771: increased drift length. As an example, we can take tracks close
772: to midrapidity, which are emitted at an angle close to $90^\circ$.
773: As the event vertex is not a fixed quantity in the z axis for the
774: different events, tracks at midrapidity coming from events with
775: different vertex z positions will have different drift distances,
776: and thus we expect systematic differences in the raw yield at
777: fixed $\eta$ for varying vertex z positions, as was discussed in
778: Section ~\ref{sec:efficiency}. To isolate differences between the
779: East ($z<0$) and West ($z>0$) halves of the TPC, we therefore have
780: to make sure that we take event and track samples that are related
781: by the transformation $\eta^{\mathrm{East}} = -
782: \eta^{\mathrm{West}}$ and $z_{\mathrm{vertex}}^{\mathrm{East}} = -
783: z_{\mathrm{vertex}}^{\mathrm{West}}$. In addition, as each TPC
784: half is made up of 24 independent sectors to cover the full
785: azimuthal range, it is also interesting to do a comparison of the
786: raw azimuthal yields to make sure there are also no systematic
787: effects. In doing this comparison, one can also separate the raw
788: yields from positively and negatively charged tracks, for there
789: might be distortions that affect these tracks differently. The
790: tracks selected must also satisfy requirement of having at least
791: 10 fit points (``cut 1'' in Fig.\ref{fig:dcaFitPts}(b)). This cut
792: is also used for the \hminus\ analysis.
793: \begin{figure}[htb]
794: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{plots/phiCompEastWestLowPtNegCharge.eps}}\quad
795: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{plots/phiCompEastWestMidPtNegCharge.eps}}
796: \caption[Raw $\phi$ distribution for the two TPC halves for
797: \hminus.]{Raw $\phi$ distribution of East and West half of the TPC
798: for negatively charged
799: particles. Left panel: low \pt\ (0.2 - 1 \gevc). Right panel: moderate \pt\ (1 - 2 \gevc)}
800: \label{fig:eastwestnegch}
801: \end{figure}
802:
803: Figure \ref{fig:eastwestnegch} shows the raw azimuthal
804: distribution for negatively charged tracks in the two halves of
805: the TPC. The East half track sample, shown as the hollow square
806: data points, was obtained from events with $-50 <
807: z_{\mathrm{vertex}} < -10$ cm and from tracks with $-0.5 < \eta <
808: 0 $. Similarly, for the West half the events had a vertex
809: selection of $10 < z_{\mathrm{vertex}} < 50$ cm and tracks were
810: selected according to $0 < \eta < 0.5 $. The left panel shows the
811: yields for the low \pt\ region, 0.2 < \pt\ < 1 \gevc. A similar
812: plot showing the raw azimuthal distribution in the range 1 < \pt\
813: < 2 \gevc\ is shown in the right panel. The samples are
814: normalized per event to isolate the differences in the raw yields.
815:
816: The size of the bins in the azimuthal direction is $15^\circ$, or
817: half a sector. We see that there is a periodic structure to the
818: distribution in both cases. This comes about because charged
819: tracks will curve in the magnetic field. Therefore, depending upon
820: their charge sign and entrance point to a sector (\ie\ their
821: azimuthal angle), will have a trajectory that is either fully
822: contained in a sector boundary or that crosses a sector boundary.
823: For a specific charge sign, tracks in one side of the sector will
824: be more easily reconstructed than on the other side, giving the
825: structure seen in Figure \ref{fig:eastwestnegch}. This effect is
826: more pronounced for low momentum (\ie\ large curvature) tracks.
827: The high yield bins for the negative charge tracks should be the
828: low yield bins for the positive ones. The low momentum positively
829: charged tracks are shown in Figure \ref{fig:eastwestposchlowpt}.
830: Indeed we see the expected change, for this case the first bin is
831: a high yield bin (compare to Fig.~\ref{fig:eastwestnegch}).
832: \begin{figure}[htb]
833: \begin{center}
834: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{plots/phiCompEastWestLowPtPosCharge.eps}
835: \caption[Raw $\phi$ distributions at low \pt\ for \hplus.]{Raw
836: $\phi$ distribution of East and West half of the TPC for low
837: transverse momentum (0.2 - 1 \gevc) positively charged particles.}
838: \label{fig:eastwestposchlowpt}
839: \end{center}
840: \end{figure}
841:
842: To focus on changes between East and West halves of the TPC, we
843: make a ratio of the previous histograms. Figure
844: \ref{fig:eastwestlowptratio} shows the ratio for low \pt\ negative
845: (a) and positive (b) tracks. The average difference in both cases
846: is on the order of 1\%.
847: \begin{figure}[htb]
848: \begin{center}
849: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{plots/phiCompEastWestLowPtNegChargeRatio.eps}}
850: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{plots/phiCompEastWestLowPtPosChargeRatio.eps}}
851: \caption[Ratio of $\phi$ distributions for \hminus\ and
852: \hplus.]{Ratio of raw $\phi$ distribution of East and West half of
853: the TPC for low transverse momentum (0.2 - 1 \gevc) negatively (a)
854: and positively (b) charged particles.}
855: \label{fig:eastwestlowptratio}
856: \end{center}
857: \end{figure}
858:
859: We can also make a comparison of the $\hminus/\hplus$ ratio in
860: both halves of the TPC. Since we know that there will be
861: systematic differences as a function of $\phi$ due to the
862: curvature effect mentioned before, we can simply make a ratio of
863: the raw yields integrated over $\phi$. For the East half of the
864: TPC we find $\hminus/\hplus = 0.983 \pm 0.005$ and for the West
865: half a similar analysis yields $\hminus/\hplus = 0.988 \pm 0.005$
866: where the errors are statistical only. We conclude that for the
867: purposes of this analysis the two halves of the TPC yield
868: sufficiently similar results.
869:
870: However, we will still separate the corrections to the raw yields
871: in other variables as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:efficiency}. We
872: expect variations in the raw yields due to different track
873: geometries and event topology. In summary, we expect that tracks
874: that do not cross the entire tracking volume of the TPC to be more
875: difficult to reconstruct than those tracks that do. In addition,
876: it is much easier to reconstruct the tracks when there are not
877: many tracks in the detector, so we must see a decrease in the
878: tracking efficiency in a high multiplicity environment.
879: Furthermore, low momentum tracks coming from the interaction
880: vertex will have a difficult time reaching the tracking volume.
881: The radial distance at the center of the first TPC sensitive pad
882: row is 60 cm, which along with the magnetic field of 0.25 T places
883: an effective low \pt\ acceptance cut-off for primary tracks of
884: $\sim 50\ \mevc$. Finally, as mentioned before even tracks in
885: identical regions of phase-space will have different raw yields
886: depending upon where the event vertex was placed because they will
887: sample a different detector geometry. Therefore, we have divided
888: all the tracking corrections according to
889: \begin{itemize}\spacing{0.6}
890: \item the phase-space cell occupied by the tracks,
891: \item the multiplicity of the event, and
892: \item the position of the primary vertex.
893: \end{itemize}\spacing{1.2}
894: The previous corrections are the most important ones in the
895: present analysis. The following corrections to the spectra and
896: yields were also studied. Each of them was found to produce
897: changes of less than 1\%.
898:
899: \subsection{Momentum resolution}\label{sec:momentumResolution}
900:
901: The momentum resolution is momentum dependent. It is well known
902: that for a \pt\ distribution, the resolution of the detector will
903: introduce a change in the slope of the observed spectrum. This can
904: be seen from the following simple argument. The effect of a
905: finite momentum resolution is that a certain number of tracks will
906: be reconstructed with the wrong momentum, and will therefore be
907: counted in an incorrect bin. It is possible for a track to be
908: reconstructed with a lower or a higher \pt. So for a given \pt\
909: bin, there will be a loss of particles to adjacent bins and a gain
910: of particles from adjacent bins. The magnitudes of these fluxes
911: compared to the yield in the given bin are the important
912: quantities. From the rapid decrease in cross section with
913: increasing \pt, we expect that the feeding of particles from the
914: lower to the higher \pt\ bins will be higher than the flux in the
915: opposite direction, and hence the net effect is to flatten the
916: spectrum to some extent. This effect becomes important when the
917: momentum resolution is of the same order as the size of the \pt\
918: bin. It is therefore necessary to quantify this effect in any
919: momentum analysis.
920:
921: For the results presented here we concentrate on $\pt \leq 2$
922: \gevc. We find the momentum resolution to be better than 4\% as
923: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptresol}. For a \pt\ bin width of 100
924: \mevc\ we expect the correction due to momentum resolution to be
925: less than 1\% in the full range of \pt. This effect was quantified
926: in two different analyses. The first approach relies on the
927: embedding procedure, and consists of dividing the phase space into
928: bins and using the track matching between simulated and
929: reconstructed tracks from. We can keep track of the \pt\ bin in
930: which a particle was created, and then see if it was reconstructed
931: in the same bin. We can thus know, for each phase space bin, what
932: percent of tracks are reconstructed correctly, what percent are
933: reconstructed in a different bins and correct for the resolution.
934:
935: The only significant correction found this way occurs for the very
936: first \pt\ bin. The reason is the following. The raw yield in
937: each bin is composed of two parts: the tracks which were correctly
938: reconstructed in the same \pt\ bin as the one they were generated
939: in, let's call these the \textit{healthy} tracks; and the tracks
940: that are found by the reconstruction but placed in a different bin
941: than the one they were generated in, let's call these the
942: \textit{crippled} tracks. Now let's focus on the region $\pt <
943: 100\ \mevc$ where the efficiency drops very rapidly with
944: decreasing \pt. There will be very few healthy tracks in the first
945: \pt\ bin because the efficiency is low. There will be, however, a
946: considerable amount of crippled tracks in the first bin coming
947: from the feed-down from the next (high efficiency) \pt\ bins. The
948: crippled tracks are almost as numerous as the healthy population
949: for this bin. We therefore must apply a correction to obtain a
950: realistic estimate of the initial healthy population in that bin.
951: For the region $\pt > 200\ \mevc$ the efficiency is independent of
952: \pt\ so we need only concentrate on the \pt\ dependence of the
953: parent distribution which we want to measure.
954:
955: We can also calculate the expected correction based on a knowledge
956: of the momentum resolution, the bin size, and a given \pt\
957: distribution. One way to treat this problem is through an
958: iterative procedure, starting with a given input \pt\
959: distribution, doing a Monte Carlo study by smearing the tracks
960: with the measured \pt\ resolution and looking at the shape of the
961: resulting distribution. We repeat the process until the output
962: distribution matches the one measured in the experiment. The
963: approach we followed relies on a related method. Starting from a
964: given input \pt\ distribution we use the measured \pt\ resolution
965: as a function of \pt\ to construct a set of Gaussians (one for
966: each \pt\ bin). We also used different functional forms to
967: parameterize the shape of the \pt\ resolution, \eg\ Lorenzian and
968: double-Gaussian, yielding similar results. The area under each
969: Gaussian is the initial yield for each \pt\ bin, the mean is the
970: center of the \pt\ bin and the $\sigma$ is obtained from the
971: measured $\delta\pt$ \vs\ \pt\ curve. We can then figure out what
972: is the contribution of each \pt\ bin to any other bin in
973: principle. In practice, each bin only contributes mainly to its
974: nearest and next-to-nearest neighbours. The observed yield in the
975: $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ \pt\ bin, $N_i^{\mathrm{obs}}$ is then:
976: \begin{equation}\label{eq:resYieldIthBin}
977: N_i^{\mathrm{obs}} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty N_k
978: \int_{p_\perp(i)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_k}e^{\frac{(p_\perp-p_\perp(k))^2}{2\sigma_k^2}}dp_\perp
979: \end{equation}
980: We can think of Eq.~\ref{eq:resYieldIthBin} as defining a matrix
981: equation
982: \begin{equation}\label{eq:resMatrix}
983: N_i^{\mathrm{obs}} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty N_k C_{ki}
984: \end{equation}
985: where the elements of the matrix $C_{ki}$ are defined by the
986: integral of Eq.~\ref{eq:resYieldIthBin}, and are interpreted as
987: the percent contribution of bin $k$ to bin $i$, \ie\ the mean of
988: the Gaussian is the center of bin $k$ and the integration limits
989: are given by the upper and lower limits of the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$
990: \pt\ bin. The width of the Gaussian is given by the detector
991: resolution at \pt\ bin $k$. Therefore, the integral depends only
992: on quantities that are measurable (the resolution) or defined by
993: our analysis (the bin limits and bin center). This matrix then
994: embodies all our knowledge of the effects of resolution.
995:
996: For a given \pt\ distribution, we can then calculate what the
997: observed distribution will be and obtain appropriate correction
998: factors for the effect of resolution. We have performed this
999: procedure with different input distributions -- power-law
1000: function, exponential in \pt\ and exponential in \mt\ with various
1001: slope parameters -- and find that in all cases the correction for
1002: any given \pt\ bin is less than 1\% in the range up to 2 \gevc\
1003: with our given bin size. This is true for both the \hminus/\hplus\
1004: analysis (bin size 100 \mevc, range 0.1 - 2 \gevc) and for the
1005: \piminus\ analysis (bin size 50 \mevc, range 0.05 - 0.75 \gevc).
1006: For higher \pt\ the resolution plays a more significant role,
1007: where we expect a correction of 20\% or more at ~ 5 \gevc\ with a
1008: 1 \gevc\ bin size and the present magnetic field of $B = 0.25$ T.
1009:
1010: An additional advantage of this resolution study is that, once we
1011: construct the $C_{ki}$ resolution matrix, we can also use it to
1012: recover the original yields $N_k$ by inverting the matrix, and no
1013: iterative procedure is needed:
1014: \begin{equation}\label{eq:resCkiInverse}
1015: N_k = \sum_{i=0}^\infty N_i^{\mathrm{obs}} (C_{ki})^{-1}
1016: \end{equation}
1017:
1018: \subsection{Track splitting}
1019: For a loose track selection based on the number of points
1020: reconstructed in the TPC, it is possible to overestimate the track
1021: yield in the presence of split tracks. This effect can come about
1022: for example when the track-finding algorithm fails to recognize
1023: two track segments as belonging to a single particle. This can
1024: happen typically when there are gaps in the track pattern, such as
1025: tracks crossing sector boundaries, tracks crossing the central
1026: membrane of the TPC, or tracks crossing a region of the TPC where
1027: the read out pad is noisy or dead.
1028:
1029: To study the effect of splitting in this analysis, we used two
1030: approaches that relied on the detector simulation. An additional
1031: study was made using only real reconstructed tracks. All three
1032: results are in agreement both in the size of the overall effect
1033: and on its $\pt$ dependence. We will discuss the approach that
1034: relies on full simulation, since this is the most
1035: straight-forward.
1036:
1037: In a full Monte Carlo generated event, we have all the information
1038: about the input tracks. Running the tracks through the GEANT
1039: implementation of the STAR detector, we obtain among other things
1040: the information on the TPC energy deposition left by the tracks.
1041: This is the input to the microscopic simulation of the TPC
1042: response yielding as output a simulated raw-data file that is then
1043: passed through the STAR reconstruction chain. A comparison of the
1044: TPC space points that are found by the reconstruction algorithms
1045: to the GEANT input is then performed. As discussed in Section
1046: \ref{sec:embedding}, the matching as implemented in this analysis
1047: is based on spatial proximity. A feature of this matching
1048: procedure is that it allows a many-to-many matching: if 2 hits are
1049: very close together for example there will be a 2-to-2 hit match.
1050: Each of the 2 Monte Carlo hits will be matched to the 2
1051: reconstructed hits.
1052:
1053: The match of simulated point to reconstructed point serves as the
1054: footing for a simulated track to reconstructed track association.
1055: Typically, the association is 1-to-1. A \textit{split} track will
1056: have a different topology. There will be one original Monte Carlo
1057: track, but it will be associated to 2 (or more) reconstructed
1058: tracks. The association algorithm allows a many-to-many type of
1059: matching, so one must be careful to really single out a split
1060: track from other matching topologies. We look for a single Monte
1061: Carlo track matched to more than one reconstructed track, and
1062: those reconstructed tracks are singly matched to the Monte Carlo
1063: track. Through this procedure, an estimate of the split track
1064: population and was found to be also below the 1\% level. In
1065: addition, the analysis done with the more stringent requirement on
1066: the number of fit points (``cut 2'' in
1067: Fig.~\ref{fig:dcaFitPts}(b)) guaranteed that there are is no
1068: double counting from split tracks. The results obtained from both
1069: analyses were found to be consistent.
1070:
1071: \subsection{Track merging}
1072:
1073: When 2 tracks lie very close together, the cluster finder might
1074: not be able to resolve the 2 ionization peaks and produce a single
1075: space point when there were originally 2 for each hit in the track
1076: trajectory. The losses due to this effect were estimated to be
1077: less than 1\% for the most central collisions and negligible for
1078: peripheral collisions.
1079:
1080:
1081: \subsection{Ghost Tracks}
1082:
1083: This correction takes into account possible cases where the track
1084: finding algorithm might associate space-points from different
1085: tracks and give us track parameters from a non-existent particle.
1086: It was not known if this could be of importance in the high
1087: multiplicity environment of a heavy ion collision at high energy.
1088: It was found that the TPC occupancy was low enough that this did
1089: not present a problem. Essentially no such tracks were found in
1090: all the simulation and embedding analyses even at higher simulated
1091: multiplicities than those observed in the data.
1092:
1093: Finally, all analyses were carried out with 3 different software
1094: production versions. As we understood the systematics of the
1095: detector better, we incorporated our knowledge of the
1096: calibrations, distortions and corrections to software bugs. The
1097: first production was done in August while data was still being
1098: taken. This was followed almost immediately by a new production
1099: one month later with improved calibrations. The data presented
1100: here is produced with the calibrations and distortion corrections
1101: processed in early 2001. The biggest systematic effect observed
1102: throughout this process was a 4.5\% change in the efficiency
1103: obtained from the first simulations compared to the following two
1104: software versions. This was understood as coming from a more
1105: realistic parameterization of the allowed space point errors used
1106: during the track finding algorithm based on the measured residuals
1107: obtained in the first analysis of the data.
1108: