1: %\chapter{Analysis Methods for pions, kaons, proton and anti-proton}
2: \chapter{Analysis Methods}
3: \label{chp:analysis}
4:
5: \section{Trigger}
6:
7: The detector used for these studies was the Solenoidal Tracker at
8: RHIC (STAR). The main tracking device is the Time Projection
9: Chamber (TPC) which provides momentum information and particle
10: identification for charged particles up to $p_{T}\sim1.1$ GeV/c by
11: measuring their ionization energy loss ({\it dE/dx})~\cite{tpc}.
12: Detailed descriptions of the TPC and d+Au run conditions have been
13: presented in Ref.~\cite{stardau,tpc}. A prototype time-of-flight detector
14: (TOFr) based on multi-gap resistive plate chambers
15: (MRPC)~\cite{startof} was installed in STAR for the d+Au and p+p
16: runs. It extends particle identification up to $p_{T}\sim3$ GeV/c
17: for $p$ and $\bar{p}$.
18:
19: TOFr covers $\pi/30$ in azimuth and $-1\!<\!\eta\!<\!0$ in
20: pseudorapidity at a radius of $\sim220$ cm. It contains 28 MRPC
21: modules which were partially instrumented during the 2003 run.
22: Since the acceptance of TOFr is small, a special trigger selected
23: events with a valid pVPD coincidence and at least one TOFr hit. A
24: total of 1.89 million and 1.08 million events were used for the
25: analysis from TOFr triggered d+Au and non-singly diffractive (NSD)
26: p+p collisions, representing an integrated luminosity of about 40
27: $\mathrm{{\mu}b}^{-1}$ and 30 $\mathrm{nb}^{-1}$, respectively.
28: Minimum-bias d+Au and p+p collisions that did not require pVPD and
29: TOFr hits were also used to study the trigger bias and enhancement,
30: and the TOFr efficiency and acceptance. The d+Au minimum-bias
31: trigger required an equivalent energy deposition of about 15 GeV in
32: the Zero Degree Calorimeter in the Au beam
33: direction~\cite{stardau}. The trigger efficiency was determined to
34: be $95\pm3\%$. Minimum-bias p+p events were triggered by the
35: coincidence of two beam-beam counters (BBC) covering $3.3<
36: |\eta|<5.0$~\cite{starhighpt}. The NSD cross section was measured to
37: be $30.0\pm3.5$ mb by a van der Meer scan and PYTHIA~\cite{pythia}
38: simulation of the BBC acceptance~\cite{starhighpt}.
39:
40:
41: \subsection{Centrality tagging}
42:
43: Centrality tagging of d+Au collisions was based on the charged
44: particle multiplicity in $-3.8<\eta<-2.8$, measured by the Forward
45: Time Projection Chamber in the Au beam
46: direction~\cite{stardau,ftpc}. The TOFr triggered d+Au events were
47: divided into three centralities: most central $20\%$, $20-40\%$
48: and $40-\sim100\%$ of the hadronic cross section. The average
49: number of binary collisions $\langle N_{bin}\rangle$ for each
50: centrality class and for the combined minimum-bias event sample is
51: derived from Glauber model calculations and listed in
52: Table~\ref{centrality}.
53:
54: %\begin{figure}[h]
55: %\centering
56: %\includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{centrality.eps}
57: %\caption{centrality}
58: %\end{figure}
59:
60:
61: Table~\ref{centrality} also lists the uncorrected FTPC east
62: reference multiplicity ranges for centrality definitions.
63: \begin{table}[h]
64: \centering
65: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
66: \hline
67: Centrality Bin & Uncorr. FTPCRefMult Range & Uncorr. $N_{charge}$ & $N_{bin}$ \\ \hline
68: M.B. & & 10.2 & $7.5\pm0.4$ \\ \hline
69: 0\%-20\% & FTPCRefMult $\geq$ 17 & 17.58 & $15.0\pm1.1$ \\ \hline
70: 20\%-40\% & 10 $\leq$ FTPCRefMult $<$ 17 & 12.55 & $10.2\pm1.0$ \\ \hline
71: 40\%-100\% & 0 $\leq$ FTPCRefMult $<$ 10 & 6.17 & $4.0\pm0.3$ \\ \hline
72: \end{tabular}
73: \caption{Centrality definitions for different uncorrected FTPC
74: east reference multiplicity ranges. Uncorrected $N_{charge}$
75: stands for the average value of uncorrected reference multiplicity
76: in certain centrality bin. The fourth column represents the number
77: of binary collisons $\langle N_{bin}\rangle$ calculated from
78: Glauber model.} \label{centrality}
79: \end{table}
80:
81: \subsection{Trigger bias study}
82: Since we set up a special trigger which selected events with a
83: valid pVPD coincidence and at least one TOFr hit, the study of
84: $p_{T}$ dependence of trigger bias is necessary.
85: Figure~\ref{PtRatioRealTOFAcceptance} shows there is negligible
86: trigger bias on $p_{T}$ dependence at $p_{T}>$ 0.3 GeV/c from
87: simulation. In this figure, pVPD means that pVPD is required to
88: fire in minimum-bias collisions. TOF means that TOFr is required
89: to fire in minimum-bias collisions, and pVPD $\&$ TOF means that
90: pVPD and TOFr are required to fire in minimum-bias collisions.
91: From this figure, if we required pVPD and TOFr to fire, we can see
92: the ratio is flat with $p_{T}$ when $p_{T}$ is larger than 0.3
93: GeV/c by comparison through the $p_{T}$ distribution in
94: minimum-bias collisions. That means the trigger bias for $p_T$
95: distribution is negligible at $p_{T}>$ 0.3 GeV/c.
96: \begin{figure}[h]
97: \centering
98: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{PtRatioRealTOFAcceptanceMod.eps}
99: \caption{The $p_{T}$ dependence plot of the trigger bias.}
100: \label{PtRatioRealTOFAcceptance}
101: \end{figure}
102:
103: \begin{figure}[h]
104: \centering
105: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{NchbiasNew.eps}
106: \caption{The enhancement factor and $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ bias
107: in minimum-bias and centrality selected d+Au collisions. }
108: \label{NchbiasNew}
109: \end{figure}
110:
111:
112: Minimum-bias d+Au and p+p collisions are used to study the trigger
113: bias and enhancement. Figure~\ref{NchbiasNew} shows the trigger
114: bias and enhancement in d+Au minimum-bias collisions and three
115: centrality bins. In this figure, TOFr means that TOFr is required
116: to fire in minimum-bias events. pVPD means that TOFr and pVPD are
117: required to fire in minimum-bias events. Minbias means the
118: minimum-bias triggered events. For enhancement study, TOFr/pVPD is
119: the ratio of the number of events in which TOFr is required to
120: fire over the number of events in which TOFr and pVPD are required
121: to fire, and Minbias/pVPD is the ratio of the number of
122: minimum-bias triggered events over the number of events in which
123: TOFr and pVPD are required to fire. The enhancement factor for
124: TOFr is (Minbias/pVPD)/(TOFr/pVPD). For example, in minimum-bias
125: collision, Minbias/pVPD is equal to 28.7, while TOFr/pVPD is 2.87,
126: so in minimum-bias collisions, the enhancement of TOFr trigger is
127: 10. For $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ bias study, TOFr/pVPD is the ratio
128: of $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ in the events where TOFr is required to
129: fire over the $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ in the events where TOFr and
130: pVPD are required to fire. Since in our triggered events, TOFr and
131: pVPD are required to fire, TOFr/pVPD is our $\langle
132: N_{ch}\rangle$ bias factor. The curves in this figure show the
133: charged particle multiplicity at mid-rapidity in TOFr events and
134: in TOFr and pVPD events individually. Table~\ref{triggerbiastable}
135: lists the enhancement factor and trigger bias in minimum-bias,
136: centrality selected d+Au collisions and minimum-bias p+p
137: collisions.
138: \begin{table}[h]
139: %\centering
140: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
141: \hline
142: Centrality Bin & TOFr triggered events & enhancement factor & $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ bias \\ \hline
143: 0\%-100\% & 1.80 M & 10.0 & 1.02 \\ \hline
144: 0\%-20\% & 0.523 M & 5.75 & 1.04 \\ \hline
145: 20\%-40\% & 0.500 M & 8.03 & 1.03 \\ \hline
146: 40\%-100\% & 0.479 M & 15.8 & 0.965 \\ \hline
147: p+p & 0.995 M& 37.4 & 1.19 \\ \hline
148: \end{tabular}
149: \caption{Trigger bias study. The $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ bias and
150: enhancement factor in minimum-bias, centrality selected d+Au
151: collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.}
152: \label{triggerbiastable}
153: \end{table}
154:
155:
156:
157:
158: \section{Track selection and calibration}
159: The TPC and TOFr are two independent systems. In the analysis,
160: hits from particles traversing the TPC were reconstructed as
161: tracks with well defined geometry, momentum, and {\it dE/dx}
162: ~\cite{tpc}.
163: % The tracks were required to have at least 15 hits out
164: %of a maximum of 45.
165: The particle trajectory was then extended outward to the TOFr
166: detector plane. The pad with the largest signal within one pad
167: distance to the projected point was associated with the track for
168: further time-of-flight and velocity ($\beta$) calculations.
169:
170: \subsection{Calibration}
171: \subsubsection{pVPD calibration}
172: For TOFr, we use pVPD as our start-timing detector. In d+Au and
173: p+p collisions, at least one east pVPD and one west pVPD were
174: required to fire. In d+Au collisions, to calibrate east pVPD, we
175: required 3 east pVPD to fire; to calibrate west pVPD, we required
176: 3 west pVPD to fire. In p+p collisions, to calibrate east pVPD, we
177: required 2 east pVPD to fire; to calibrate west pVPD, we required
178: 2 west pVPD to fire. Let's take the east pVPD calibration in d+Au
179: collisions as an example. The label for 3 pVPD are pVPD1, pVPD2,
180: pVPD3, the adc and tdc value for pVPD1 are $a1$, $t1$, and the
181: slewing correction function is $f1$; the adc and tdc value for
182: pVPD2 are $a2$, $t2$, and the slewing correction function is $f2$;
183: the adc and tdc value for pVPD3 are $a3$, $t3$, and the slewing
184: correction function is $f3$. We use $t1-((t2-f2)+(t3-f3))/2$ vs
185: $a1$ to get the slewing correction for pVPD1; use
186: $t2-((t3-f3)+(t1-f1))/2$ vs $a2$ to get the slewing correction for
187: pVPD2; use $t3-((t1-f1)+(t2-f2))/2$ vs $a3$ to get the slewing
188: correction for pVPD3. At the beginning, $f1=f2=f3=0$, we got 3
189: curves of $t1-((t2-f2)+(t3-f3))/2$ vs $a1$,
190: $t2-((t3-f3)+(t1-f1))/2$ vs $a2$ and $t3-((t1-f1)+(t2-f2))/2$ vs
191: $a3$. The 3 curves corresponded to the 3 slewing functions $f(a1),
192: f(a2), f(a3)$; For the second step, $f1=f(a1), f2=f(a2),
193: f3=f(a3)$, also plot $t1-((t2-f2)+(t3-f3))/2$ vs $a1$,
194: $t2-((t3-f3)+(t1-f1))/2$ vs $a2$ and $t3-((t1-f1)+(t2-f2))/2$ vs
195: $a3$. And we got the new three slewing curves $f'(a1), f'(a2),
196: f'(a3)$. For the third step, $f1=f'(a1), f2=f'(a2), f3=f'(a3)$,
197: also plot $t1-((t2-f2)+(t3-f3))/2$ vs $a1$,
198: $t2-((t3-f3)+(t1-f1))/2$ vs $a2$ and $t3-((t1-f1)+(t2-f2))/2$ vs
199: $a3$. And we got another new three slewing curves $f''(a1),
200: f''(a2), f''(a3)$. And so on and so forth till the resolution of
201: $t1-f1-((t2-f2)+(t3-f3))/2, t2-f2-((t3-f3)+(t1-f1))/2$ and
202: $t3-f3-((t1-f1)+(t2-f2))/2$ converged. The looping method is to
203: subtract the correlation of different pVPD tubes in the same
204: direction. The function for the slewing correction we use is
205: $y=par[0]+par[1]/\sqrt{x}+par[2]/x+par[3]\times{x}$. In
206: Figure~\ref{pvpdslewingplotforthesis}, the left plot shows the
207: pVPD2 slewing plot and the right plot shows that the timing is
208: independent on the ADC value after the slewing correction.
209: \begin{figure}[h]
210: %\centering
211: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
212: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{pvpdslewingplot.eps}
213: \end{minipage}
214: \hspace{\fill}
215: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
216: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{pvpdslewingplot1.eps}
217: \end{minipage}
218: \caption{pVPD slewing correction.}
219: \label{pvpdslewingplotforthesis}
220: \end{figure}
221:
222: After the slewing correction, we got the corrected timing of east
223: pVPD and west pVPD. For each side, the timing difference should be
224: shifted to zero. That's to say the mean value in the distribution
225: of $t1-f1-(t2-f2)$ and $t1-f1-(t3-f3)$ were shifted to zero. Also
226: we need to correct for the effect caused by the different numbers
227: of fired pVPD in different events. What we did was shifting the
228: mean value of the distribution of
229: ($\sum{te})/Ne-(\sum{tw})/Nw-2.\times{Vz/c}$ to zero, where the
230: $\sum{te}$, $\sum{tw}$ means the sum of the corrected timing of
231: east fired pVPD and west fired pVPD respectively, $Ne, Nw$ means
232: the number of east fired pVPD and west fired pVPD, $Vz$ is the $z$
233: value of primary vertex of the event, and $c$ is the light
234: velocity.
235:
236: \subsubsection{TOFr calibration}
237:
238: After the slewing correction for pVPD, we use this variable as our
239: start timing:
240: \begin{equation}
241: T_{start}=\frac{{\sum_{i=1}^{Ne}{te}}+{\sum_{i=1}^{Nw}{tw}}-(Ne-Nw)\times{Vz}/c}{Ne+Nw}
242: \end{equation}
243:
244: \begin{figure}[h]
245: \centering
246: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{dedxplottmp.eps}
247: \caption{dE/dx vs $p$ plot from d+Au collisions. The line
248: represents that $dE/dx=0.028\times{10^{-4}}$ GeV/cm in this
249: momentum range $0.3<p<0.6$ GeV/c.} \label{dAudedxplot}
250: \end{figure}
251:
252: \begin{figure}[h]
253: \centering
254: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{slewingplot.eps}
255: \caption{The slewing correction.} \label{slewingplot}
256: \end{figure}
257:
258: \begin{figure}[h]
259: \centering
260: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{ZFit_forthesis.eps}
261: \caption{The z position correction.} \label{ZFit_forthesis}
262: \end{figure}
263:
264: \begin{figure}[h]
265: %\centering
266: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
267: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{dAutiming.eps}
268: \end{minipage}
269: \hspace{\fill}
270: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
271: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{pptiming.eps}
272: \end{minipage}
273: \caption{The overall timing resolution after the calibration.}
274: \label{timeresolution}
275: \end{figure}
276:
277: The difference between TOFr timing $T_{tofr}$ and start timing
278: $T_{start}$ is our time of flight $tof=T_{tofr}-T_{start}$. To
279: calibrate the $tof$, the pure pion sample was chosen by selecting
280: the particle energy loss $dE/dx$ in TPC at
281: $dE/dx<0.028\times{10^{-4}}$ GeV/cm in the momentum range
282: $0.3<p<0.6$ GeV/c. Figure~\ref{dAudedxplot} shows dE/dx vs $p$
283: plot from d+Au collisions. Firstly the so called $T_{0}$
284: correction was done due to the different cable lengths for
285: different read-out channels, which was done by shifting the mean
286: value of the distribution of $tof-T_{\pi}$ to zero channel by
287: channel, where $T_{\pi}$ is the calculation timing assuming the
288: particle was pion particle. Secondly, the slewing correction due
289: to correlation between timing and signal amplitude of the
290: electronics was done by getting the curve of $tof'-T_{\pi}$ vs
291: $adc$ for each channel, where the $tof'$ was the time of flight
292: after the $T_{0}$ correction and $adc$ was the ADC value of TOFr.
293: The slewing curve is like the plot shown in
294: Figure~\ref{slewingplot}. The function of the slewing correction
295: is
296: $y=par[0]+par[1]/\sqrt{x}+par[2]/x+par[3]/\sqrt{x}/x+par[4]/x/x$.
297:
298: The z position correction was also done since the different hit
299: positions on the read-out strip will generate different
300: transmission timing. This was done by getting the function of
301: $tof''-T_{\pi}$ versus $Z_{local}$, where the $tof''$ is the time
302: of flight after the $T_{0}$ and slewing correction, and
303: $Z_{local}$ is the the hit local z position of the TOFr. The
304: function for the z position correction is
305: $y=\sum_{i=0}^{7}{(par[i]\times{x^{i}})}$. The z position
306: correction for all the channels is shown in
307: Figure~\ref{ZFit_forthesis}. After the z position was done, the
308: calibration for TOFr was finished. The overall resolution of TOFr
309: was 120 ps and 160 ps in d+Au and p+p collisions respectively,
310: where the effective timing resolution of the pVPDs was 85 ps and
311: 140 ps, respectively. Figure~\ref{timeresolution} shows the
312: overall resolution of TOFr in d+Au and p+p collisions.
313:
314:
315: \section{Raw yield}
316:
317: \begin{figure}[h]
318: \centering
319: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{tofr_beta_p_prplot0910.eps}
320: \caption{$1/\beta$ vs. momentum for $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, and
321: $p(\bar{p})$ from 200 GeV d+Au collisions. Separations between
322: pions and kaons, kaons and protons are achieved up to
323: $p_{T}\simeq1.6$ and $3.0$ GeV/c, respectively. The insert shows
324: $m^{2}=p^{2}(1/\beta^{2}-1)$ for $1.2<p_{T}<1.4$ GeV/c. Clear
325: separation of $\pi$, $K$ and $p$ is seen.} \label{beta}
326: \end{figure}
327: From the timing information $t$ from TOFr after the calibration
328: and the pathlength $L$ from TPC, the velocity $\beta$ of the
329: particle can be easily got by $\beta=L/t/c$. Figure~\ref{beta}
330: shows $1/\beta$ from TOFr measurement as a function of momentum
331: ($p$) calculated from TPC tracking in TOFr triggered d+Au
332: collisions. The raw yields of $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$ and
333: $\bar{p}$ are obtained from Gaussian fits to the distributions in
334: $m^{2}=p^{2}(1/\beta^{2}-1)$ in each $p_{T}$ bin.
335:
336: \subsection{$\pi$ raw yield extraction}
337: For $\pi^{\pm}$, the rapidity range is $-0.5<y_{\pi}<0.$. After
338: $|N_{\sigma\pi}|<2$ was required, the mass squared
339: $m^{2}=p^{2}(1/\beta^{2}-1)$ distributions in different $p_{T}$
340: bin in d+Au minimum-bias collisions are shown is
341: Figure~\ref{pionplusrawyieldplot} and
342: Figure~\ref{pionminusrawyieldplot}. At $p_{T}<0.8$ GeV/c, the
343: single Gaussian function was used to fit the distribution of
344: $m^{2}$ to get the raw yield. At the same time, the counting
345: result by counting the track number at the range $-0.1<m^{2}<0.1$
346: $(GeV/c^{2})^2$ was also used to compare with the raw yield from
347: the fitting method. The difference between them was found in one
348: sigma range. The raw yield we quote is from the fitting method. At
349: $p_{T}>0.8$ GeV/c, the double Gaussian function was used to
350: extract the raw yield. The raw signals in each $P_{T}$ bin are
351: shown in Table~\ref{pionplustable} and Table~\ref{pionminustable}.
352: Also shown in the tables are those in centrality selected d+Au
353: collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.
354:
355: \subsection{$K$ raw yield extraction}
356:
357: For $K^{\pm}$, the rapidity range is $-0.5<y_{K}<0$. After
358: $|N_{\sigma K}|<2$ was required, the mass squared
359: $m^{2}=p^{2}(1/\beta^{2}-1)$ distributions in different $p_{T}$
360: bin in d+Au minimum-bias collisions are shown is
361: Figure~\ref{kaonplusrawyieldplot} and
362: Figure~\ref{kaonminusrawyieldplot}. At $p_{T}<0.8$ GeV/c, the
363: single Gaussian function was used to fit the distribution of
364: $m^{2}$ to get the raw yield. At the same time, the counting
365: result by counting the track number at the range $0.16<m^{2}<0.36$
366: $(GeV/c^{2})^2$ was also used to compare with the raw yield from
367: the fitting method. The difference between them was found in one
368: sigma range. The raw yield we quote is from the fitting method. At
369: $p_{T}>0.8$ GeV/c, the double Gaussian function was used to
370: extract the raw yield. The raw signals in each $P_{T}$ bin are
371: shown in Table~\ref{kaonplustable} and Table~\ref{kaonminustable}.
372: Also shown in the tables are those in centrality selected d+Au
373: collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.
374:
375: \subsection{$p$ and $\bar{p}$ raw yield extraction}
376: \begin{figure}[h]
377: \centering
378: %\hspace{-9pc}
379: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{pbardca1.0.eps}
380: \caption{the ratio of $\bar{p}$ at $dca<1.0$ cm over $\bar{p}$ at
381: $dca<3.0$ cm.} \label{pbardcaratio}
382: \end{figure}
383: For $\bar{p}$, the rapidity range is $-0.5<y_{\bar{p}}<0$. After
384: $|N_{\sigma p}|<2$ was required, the mass squared
385: $m^{2}=p^{2}(1/\beta^{2}-1)$ distributions in different $p_{T}$
386: bin in d+Au minimum-bias collisions are shown is
387: Figure~\ref{pbarrawyieldplot}. At $p_{T}<1.6$ GeV/c, the single
388: Gaussian function was used to fit the distribution of $m^{2}$ to
389: get the raw yield. At the same time, the counting result by
390: counting the track number at the range $0.64<m^{2}<1.44$
391: $(GeV/c^{2})^2$ was also used to compare with the raw yield from
392: the fitting method. The difference between them was found in one
393: sigma range. The raw yield we quote is from the fitting method. At
394: $p_{T}>1.6$ GeV/c, the double Gaussian function was used to
395: extract the raw yield. The raw signals in each $P_{T}$ bin are
396: shown in Table~\ref{pbartable}. For the $p$, the raw yield
397: extraction method is the same as $\bar{p}$ except that at
398: $p_{T}<1.6$
399: GeV/c, we use the method
400: $Np=Np_{dca<1.cm}\times{(N\bar{p}_{dca<3.cm}/N\bar{p}_{dca<1.cm})
401: }$ to reject the background, where $Np$ and $N\bar{p}$ are the
402: number of the $p$ and $\bar{p}$ tracks individually, and
403: $N\bar{p}_{dca<1.cm}/N\bar{p}_{dca<3.cm}$ is the ratio of
404: $\bar{p}$ tracks at $dca<1.0$ cm over those at $dca<3.0$ cm. In
405: Figure~\ref{protonrawyieldplot}, the first 10 $p_{T}$ bins are for
406: $dca<1.0$ cm, the last 4 $p_{T}$ bins are for $dca<3.0$ cm.
407: Figure~\ref{pbardcaratio} shows the ratio of $\bar{p}$ tracks at
408: $dca<1.0$ cm over those at $dca<3.0$ cm. After this correction of
409: $Np=Np_{dca<1.cm}\times{(N\bar{p}_{dca<3.cm}/N\bar{p}_{dca<1.cm})
410: }$, the $p$ raw signals in each $P_{T}$ bin are shown in
411: Table~\ref{protontable}.
412:
413: \section{Efficiency and acceptance correction}
414:
415: \begin{figure}[h]
416: %\centering
417: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
418: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{pluseff.eps}
419: \end{minipage}
420: \hspace{\fill}
421: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
422: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{minuseff.eps}
423: \end{minipage}
424: \caption{TPC reconstruction efficiency of $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$,
425: $p$ and $\bar{p}$ as a function of $p_{T}$. The left plot for
426: charged plus particle and the right for charged minus particle. }
427: \label{tpceff}
428: \end{figure}
429:
430: \begin{figure}[h]
431: %\centering
432: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
433: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{plusMatchingEff.eps}
434: \end{minipage}
435: \hspace{\fill}
436: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
437: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{minusMatchingEff.eps}
438: \end{minipage}
439: \caption{Matching efficiency from TOFr to TPC of $\pi^{\pm}$,
440: $K^{\pm}$, $p$ and $\bar{p}$ as a function of $p_{T}$, including
441: detector response. The left plot for charged plus particle and the
442: right for charged minus particle.} \label{matcheff}
443: \end{figure}
444:
445: Acceptance and efficiency were studied by Monte Carlo simulations
446: and by matching TPC track and TOFr hits in real data.
447: %TPC tracking and MRPC hit matching efficiencies were both about $90\%$.
448: TPC tracking efficiency was studied by Monte Carlo simulations.
449: The simulated $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$ and $\bar{p}$ are
450: generated using a flat $p_T$ and a flat $y$ distribution and pass
451: through GSTAR~\cite{long:01} (the framework software package to
452: run the STAR detector simulation using
453: GEANT~\cite{geant:01,geant:02}) and TRS (the TPC Response
454: Simulator~\cite{long:01}). The simulated $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$,
455: $p$ and $\bar{p}$ are then combined with a real raw event and we
456: call this combined event a simulated event. This simulated event
457: is then passed through the standard STAR reconstruction chain and
458: we call this event after reconstruction a reconstructed event. The
459: reconstructed information of those particles in the reconstructed
460: event is then associated with the Monte-Carlo information in the
461: simulated event. And then we get the total number of simulated
462: $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$ and $\bar{p}$ from simulated events in
463: a certain transverse momentum bin. Also we can get the total
464: number of associated tracks in the reconstructed events in this
465: transverse momentum bin~\cite{Haibin:03}. In the end, take the
466: ratio of the number of associated $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$ and
467: $\bar{p}$ over the number of simulated $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$
468: and $\bar{p}$ and this ratio is the TPC reconstruction efficiency
469: for a certain transverse momentum bin in the mid-rapidity range.
470: Figure~\ref{tpceff} shows the TPC reconstruction efficiency of
471: $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$ and $\bar{p}$ as a function of
472: $p_{T}$.
473:
474: \begin{figure}[h]
475: \centering
476: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{tofr_detecting_efficiency.eps}
477: \caption{The TOFr response efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$.}
478: \label{detectorresponse}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: The Matching Efficiency from TPC to TOFr were studied in
482: real data, and the formula are
483: \begin{equation}
484: Eff_{Match}=\frac{TofrMatchedTracks/dAuTOFrEvents}
485: {(MinBiasTracks/MinBiasEvents)_{pVPD}\times{factor1}\times{factor2}}
486: \end{equation}
487: where the $TofrMatchedTracks/dAuTOFrEvents$ is the number of TOFr
488: matched tracks per dAuTOFr trigger event,
489: $(MinBiasTracks/MinBiasEvents)_{pVPD}$ is the number of
490: minimum-bias tracks per minimum-bias event by requiring the pVPD
491: to fire, $factor1$ is the enhancement factor of dAuTOFr trigger,
492: and $factor2$ is the other factors such as the TOFr trip factor.
493: The $Eff_{Match}$ includes the detector response efficiency.
494: Figure~\ref{matcheff} shows the matching efficiency of different
495: particle species including the detector response versus $p_{T}$.
496: The detector response efficiency, including the material
497: absorption and scattering effect between TPC and TOFr, as a
498: function of $p_{T}$ is shown in Figure~\ref{detectorresponse},
499: which is around 90\% at $p_{T}>$ 0.3 GeV/c. After the material
500: absorption and scattering effect correction, the detector response
501: efficiency is around 95\%.
502:
503: \section{Background correction}
504:
505: \begin{figure}[h]
506: \centering
507: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=18pc]{pionbackgroundMod.eps}
508: \caption{$\pi$ background contribution as a function of $p_{T}$.
509: The circled symbols represent the total $\pi$ background
510: contribution including feed-down and $\mu$ misidentification. The
511: squared and triangled symbols represent the week-decay and $\mu$
512: misidentification contributions individually.}
513: \label{pionbackground}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: Weak-decay feeddown (e.g. $K_{s}^{0}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$) to
517: pions is $\sim12\%$ at low $p_{T}$ and $\sim5\%$ at high $p_{T}$,
518: and was corrected for using PYTHIA~\cite{pythia} and
519: HIJING~\cite{hijing} simulations, as shown in
520: Figure~\ref{pionbackground}. For $\pi$ spectra, the $\mu$
521: misidentification was also corrected for, which is also shown in
522: Figure~\ref{pionbackground}.
523: \begin{figure}[h]
524: \centering
525: %\hspace{-9pc}
526: \includegraphics[height=18pc,width=24pc]{protonScatter_dca1.0.eps}
527: \caption{The $p$ scattering effect contribution when we cut
528: $dca<1.0$ cm.} \label{protonScatter}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531: Inclusive $p$ and $\bar{p}$ production is presented without
532: hyperon feeddown correction. $p$ and $\bar{p}$ from hyperon decays
533: have the same detection efficiency as primary $p$ and
534: $\bar{p}$~\cite{antiproton} and contribute about 20\% to the
535: inclusive $p$ and $\bar{p}$ yield, as estimated from the
536: simulation. However, for $p$, there is still some scattering
537: contribution which comes from the beam pipe interaction after the
538: cut of $dca<1.0$ cm. Figure~\ref{protonScatter} shows the
539: contribution of scattering effect for proton when we cut $dca<1.0$
540: cm. The correction is done at $p_{T}<$ 1.1 GeV/c and negligible at
541: higher $p_{T}$.
542:
543: \section{Energy loss correction}
544: The energy loss effect due to the interaction with the detector
545: material was also corrected for. This was studied by simulation.
546: Figure~\ref{eloss} shows the momentum and transverse momentum
547: correction for energy loss effect. At $p_{T}>$0.35 GeV/c, for
548: $\pi$, the energy loss effect is negligible while for kaon and
549: proton, the energy loss correction is non-negligible at lower
550: $p_{T}$ and negligible at higher $p_{T}$. The correction was done
551: by shifting the position of $p_{T}$ in the $p_{T}$ spectra.
552: \begin{figure}[h]
553: %\centering
554: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
555: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{ptotthetadiff.eps}
556: \end{minipage}
557: \hspace{\fill}
558: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
559: \includegraphics[height=13pc,width=18pc]{ptdiff.eps}
560: \end{minipage}
561: \caption{(left) p energy loss correction of different particle
562: species as a function of p. $p_{rec}$ is the reconstructed
563: momentum before the energy loss correction, $p_{MC}$ is the
564: momentum after energy loss correction from simulation, $\theta$ is
565: the angle between the reconstructed momentum and beam line.
566: (right) $p_{T}$ energy loss correction of different particle
567: species as a function of $p_{T}$. $p_{T}(rec)$ is the
568: reconstructed transverse momentum before the energy loss
569: correction, $p_{T}(MC)$ is the transverse momentum after energy
570: loss correction from simulation. } \label{eloss}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573: \section{Normalization}
574: The efficiency including vertex efficiency and trigger efficiency
575: is 91\% in d+Au minimum-bias collisions and 85\% in p+p and
576: 40-100\% d+Au collisions. In 0\%-20\% and 20\%-40\% d+Au
577: collisions, the efficiency is 100\%. Since the statistic of p+p
578: minimum-bias events in run 3 is not good enough for us to get very
579: precise enhancement factor and $N_{ch}$ bias factor. We compare
580: the $\pi$ spectra in the first 5 $p_{T}$ bin with those from the
581: paper~\cite{olga} and get the additional normalization factor for
582: p+p collisions.
583:
584: \begin{figure}[h]
585: %\centering
586: \hspace{-3pc}
587: \includegraphics[height=40pc,width=40pc]{pionplusrawyield_forthesis.eps}
588: \caption{$\pi^{+}$ raw yields versus mass squared distribution.
589: The histograms are our data. The curves are Gaussian fits.}
590: \label{pionplusrawyieldplot}
591: \end{figure}
592:
593: \begin{figure}[h]
594: %\centering
595: \hspace{-3pc}
596: \includegraphics[height=40pc,width=40pc]{pionminusrawyield_forthesis.eps}
597: \caption{$\pi^{-}$ raw yields versus mass squared distribution.
598: The histograms are our data. The curves are Gaussian fits.}
599: \label{pionminusrawyieldplot}
600: \end{figure}
601:
602: \begin{figure}[h]
603: %\centering
604: \hspace{-3pc}
605: \includegraphics[height=40pc,width=40pc]{kaonplusrawyield_forthesis.eps}
606: \caption{$K^{+}$ raw yields versus mass squared distribution. The
607: histograms are our data. The curves are Gaussian fits.}
608: \label{kaonplusrawyieldplot}
609: \end{figure}
610:
611: \begin{figure}[h]
612: %\centering
613: \hspace{-3pc}
614: \includegraphics[height=40pc,width=40pc]{kaonminusrawyield_forthesis.eps}
615: \caption{$K^{-}$ raw yields versus mass squared distribution. The
616: histograms are our data. The curves are Gaussian fits.}
617: \label{kaonminusrawyieldplot}
618: \end{figure}
619:
620: \begin{figure}[h]
621: %\centering
622: \hspace{-3pc}
623: \includegraphics[height=40pc,width=40pc]{protonrawyield_forthesis.eps}
624: \caption{$p$ raw yields versus mass squared distribution. The
625: histograms are our data. The curves are Gaussian fits.}
626: \label{protonrawyieldplot}
627: \end{figure}
628:
629: \begin{figure}[h]
630: %\centering
631: \hspace{-3pc}
632: \includegraphics[height=40pc,width=40pc]{pbarrawyield_forthesis.eps}
633: \caption{$\bar{p}$ raw yields versus mass squared distribution.
634: The histograms are our data. The curves are Gaussian fits.}
635: \label{pbarrawyieldplot}
636: \end{figure}
637:
638: \begin{table}[h]
639: \begin{scriptsize}
640: \centering
641: %\hspace{-5.pc}
642: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
643: \hline
644: $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) & d+Au Trigger & 0\%-20\% & 20\%-40\% & 40\%-100\% & p+p \\ \hline
645: 0.3-0.4 & $2.929e+04\pm171.4$ & $9219\pm96.21$ & $8735\pm93.6$ & $8604\pm92.84$ & $1.806e+04\pm134.4$ \\ \hline
646: 0.4-0.5 & $2.185e+04\pm147.8$ & $6894\pm83.03$ & $6657\pm81.59$ & $6325\pm79.53$ & $1.274e+04\pm114.3$ \\ \hline
647: 0.5-0.6 & $1.592e+04\pm126.2$ & $5162\pm71.85$ & $4901\pm70.3$ & $4534\pm67.34$ & $9180\pm95.81$ \\ \hline
648: 0.6-0.7 & $1.166e+04\pm108$ & $3832\pm62.19$ & $3556\pm59.64$ & $3311\pm57.54$ & $6531\pm80.82$ \\ \hline
649: 0.7-0.8 & $8556\pm92.5$ & $2909\pm53.93$ & $2628\pm51.26$ & $2368\pm48.67$ & $4447\pm66.74$ \\ \hline
650: 0.8-0.9 & $6198\pm78.86$ & $2099\pm45.85$ & $1936\pm44.33$ & $1693\pm41.17$ & $2973\pm54.57$ \\ \hline
651: 0.9-1 & $4520\pm67.25$ & $1487\pm38.57$ & $1361\pm36.9$ & $1276\pm35.74$ & $2132\pm46.31$ \\ \hline
652: 1-1.1 & $3312\pm57.61$ & $1147\pm33.9$ & $1033\pm32.17$ & $845.9\pm29.15$ & $1386\pm37.71$ \\ \hline
653: 1.1-1.2 & $2406\pm49.35$ & $788.6\pm28.19$ & $752.5\pm27.58$ & $652.7\pm25.7$ & $959.2\pm31.93$ \\ \hline
654: 1.2-1.4 & $3227\pm58.17$ & $1132\pm34.28$ & $934.4\pm30.98$ & $831.5\pm29.82$ & $1183\pm40.11$ \\ \hline
655: 1.4-1.6 & $1756\pm45.2$ & $573.7\pm26.2$ & $543.7\pm24$ & $412.8\pm21.83$ & $625.5\pm30.16$ \\ \hline
656: 1.6-1.8 & $1046\pm39$ & $337.9\pm20.42$ & $309.8\pm18.62$ & $234\pm16.58$ & $364.5\pm32.64$ \\ \hline
657: \end{tabular}
658: \caption{$\pi^{+}$ raw signal table in minimum-bias, centrality
659: selected d+Au collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.}
660: \label{pionplustable}
661: \end{scriptsize}
662: \end{table}
663:
664:
665: \begin{table}[h]
666: \begin{scriptsize}
667: \centering
668: %\hspace{-5.pc}
669: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
670: \hline
671: $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) & d+Au Trigger & 0\%-20\% & 20\%-40\% & 40\%-100\% & p+p \\ \hline
672: 0.3-0.4 & $2.861e+04\pm169.4$ & $8922\pm94.66$ & $8507\pm92.38$ & $8519\pm92.4$ & $1.715e+04\pm131$ \\ \hline
673: 0.4-0.5 & $2.139e+04\pm146.3$ & $6805\pm82.49$ & $6458\pm80.35$ & $6306\pm79.41$ & $1.28e+04\pm113.1$ \\ \hline
674: 0.5-0.6 & $1.611e+04\pm126.9$ & $5327\pm72.98$ & $4873\pm69.8$ & $4605\pm67.86$ & $9189\pm95.86$ \\ \hline
675: 0.6-0.7 & $1.166e+04\pm108$ & $3831\pm61.9$ & $3550\pm59.5$ & $3355\pm57.92$ & $6362\pm79.69$ \\ \hline
676: 0.7-0.8 & $8447\pm91.91$ & $2837\pm53.64$ & $2540\pm50.4$ & $2387\pm48.86$ & $4154\pm64.5$ \\ \hline
677: 0.8-0.9 & $5950\pm77.17$ & $2076\pm45.61$ & $1780\pm42.2$ & $1646\pm40.68$ & $2899\pm53.87$ \\ \hline
678: 0.9-1 & $4284\pm65.46$ & $1446\pm38.03$ & $1317\pm36.31$ & $1171\pm34.29$ & $1924\pm44.01$ \\ \hline
679: 1-1.1 & $3296\pm57.47$ & $1123\pm33.55$ & $1014\pm31.9$ & $897.5\pm30.02$ & $1372\pm37.77$ \\ \hline
680: 1.1-1.2 & $2464\pm49.88$ & $812.4\pm28.58$ & $762.4\pm27.69$ & $650.8\pm25.72$ & $1005\pm33.16$ \\ \hline
681: 1.2-1.4 & $3136\pm57.28$ & $1027\pm32.54$ & $972.9\pm31.71$ & $828.8\pm29.65$ & $1243\pm39.78$ \\ \hline
682: 1.4-1.6 & $1716\pm45.79$ & $612.5\pm25.87$ & $539.3\pm25.67$ & $422.7\pm24.22$ & $603.8\pm30.49$ \\ \hline
683: 1.6-1.8 & $1033\pm39.74$ & $375.3\pm21.21$ & $306.1\pm19.59$ & $239.9\pm48.55$ & $337.1\pm28.82$ \\ \hline
684: \end{tabular}
685: \caption{$\pi^{-}$ raw signal table in minimum-bias, centrality
686: selected d+Au collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.}
687: \label{pionminustable}
688: \end{scriptsize}
689: \end{table}
690:
691:
692: \begin{table}[h]
693: \begin{scriptsize}
694: \centering
695: %\hspace{-4.pc}
696: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
697: \hline
698: $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) & d+Au Trigger & 0\%-20\% & 20\%-40\% & 40\%-100\% & p+p \\ \hline
699: 0.4-0.5 & $1410\pm37.54$ & $417.2\pm20.44$ & $420.9\pm20.52$ & $354.9\pm18.84$ & $753.2\pm27.44$ \\ \hline
700: 0.5-0.6 & $1588\pm39.85$ & $486.3\pm22.06$ & $461\pm21.48$ & $435\pm20.87$ & $729.3\pm27$ \\ \hline
701: 0.6-0.7 & $1499\pm38.71$ & $465.9\pm21.59$ & $445.5\pm21.17$ & $395\pm19.87$ & $710.1\pm26.65$ \\ \hline
702: 0.7-0.8 & $1346\pm36.69$ & $423.9\pm20.59$ & $419.8\pm20.62$ & $335.7\pm18.32$ & $579\pm24.06$ \\ \hline
703: 0.8-0.9 & $1105\pm33.59$ & $369.7\pm19.3$ & $317.9\pm18.43$ & $282.5\pm17.03$ & $496.2\pm22.44$ \\ \hline
704: 0.9-1 & $969.1\pm31.19$ & $283.9\pm16.86$ & $305.1\pm17.52$ & $258.7\pm16.23$ & $381.2\pm19.87$ \\ \hline
705: 1-1.1 & $799.3\pm28.41$ & $278.6\pm16.79$ & $224\pm15.04$ & $192.3\pm14.04$ & $301.5\pm18.39$ \\ \hline
706: 1.1-1.2 & $656.7\pm26.24$ & $199.1\pm14.33$ & $186.2\pm14$ & $155.7\pm12.94$ & $267.8\pm18.71$ \\ \hline
707: 1.2-1.4 & $1013\pm34.43$ & $335\pm19.51$ & $283.1\pm17.71$ & $234.1\pm17.68$ & $421.1\pm29.14$ \\ \hline
708: 1.4-1.6 & $605.9\pm30.14$ & $191.1\pm17.77$ & $174.1\pm14.77$ & $148.8\pm15.48$ & $238.8\pm13.97$ \\ \hline
709: 1.6-1.8 & $382.9\pm28.9$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ \\ \hline
710: \end{tabular}
711: \caption{$K^{+}$ raw signal table in minimum-bias, centrality
712: selected d+Au collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.}
713: \label{kaonplustable}
714: \end{scriptsize}
715: \end{table}
716:
717:
718: \begin{table}[h]
719: \begin{scriptsize}
720: \centering
721: %\hspace{-4.pc}
722: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
723: \hline
724: $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) & d+Au Trigger & 0\%-20\% & 20\%-40\% & 40\%-100\% & p+p \\ \hline
725: 0.4-0.5 & $1341\pm36.62$ & $411.6\pm20.29$ & $367.6\pm19.19$ & $378\pm19.44$ & $682.6\pm26.13$ \\ \hline
726: 0.5-0.6 & $1498\pm38.7$ & $460\pm21.45$ & $411.5\pm20.32$ & $420.5\pm20.51$ & $740.7\pm27.21$ \\ \hline
727: 0.6-0.7 & $1410\pm37.55$ & $436.2\pm20.89$ & $398.4\pm19.97$ & $361.9\pm19.02$ & $616.8\pm24.83$ \\ \hline
728: 0.7-0.8 & $1207\pm34.74$ & $366\pm19.14$ & $349.7\pm18.7$ & $350\pm18.75$ & $557.4\pm23.61$ \\ \hline
729: 0.8-0.9 & $1057\pm32.66$ & $317.4\pm18.12$ & $332.4\pm18.37$ & $268.2\pm16.66$ & $432.9\pm20.93$ \\ \hline
730: 0.9-1 & $863.7\pm29.42$ & $256.9\pm16.09$ & $267.2\pm16.43$ & $223.8\pm15.03$ & $368.9\pm19.59$ \\ \hline
731: 1-1.1 & $635.2\pm25.35$ & $198.2\pm14.35$ & $183.1\pm13.61$ & $187.9\pm13.88$ & $320.4\pm19.42$ \\ \hline
732: 1.1-1.2 & $543\pm23.92$ & $166.4\pm13.14$ & $143\pm12.22$ & $154.1\pm12.89$ & $248.5\pm18.84$ \\ \hline
733: 1.2-1.4 & $895\pm32.45$ & $302.1\pm18.3$ & $258\pm17.06$ & $206.7\pm16.17$ & $377.1\pm26.67$ \\ \hline
734: 1.4-1.6 & $645.5\pm31.61$ & $202.4\pm16.78$ & $141\pm15.58$ & $166.6\pm17.87$ & $237.6\pm20.52$ \\ \hline
735: 1.6-1.8 & $351.3\pm29.79$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ \\ \hline
736:
737: \end{tabular}
738: \caption{$K^{-}$ raw signal table in minimum-bias, centrality
739: selected d+Au collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.}
740: \label{kaonminustable}
741: \end{scriptsize}
742: \end{table}
743:
744:
745: \begin{table}[h]
746: \begin{scriptsize}
747: \centering
748: %\hspace{-4.pc}
749: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
750: \hline
751: $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) & d+Au Trigger & 0\%-20\% & 20\%-40\% & 40\%-100\% & p+p \\ \hline
752: 0.4-0.5 & $1377\pm107.5$ & $412.6\pm40.73$ & $403.5\pm40.11$ & $422.7\pm41.42$ & $657.5\pm64.94$ \\ \hline
753: 0.5-0.6 & $1527\pm89.71$ & $492.2\pm36.58$ & $428.6\pm33.09$ & $424.8\pm32.89$ & $752.6\pm59.91$ \\ \hline
754: 0.6-0.7 & $1456\pm80.28$ & $437.9\pm31.47$ & $420\pm30.56$ & $401.3\pm29.6$ & $704.9\pm54.1$ \\ \hline
755: 0.7-0.8 & $1336\pm73.68$ & $410.6\pm29.43$ & $387.9\pm28.28$ & $385\pm28.14$ & $670\pm55.36$ \\ \hline
756: 0.8-0.9 & $1278\pm72.45$ & $387.6\pm28.57$ & $371.4\pm27.72$ & $312\pm24.57$ & $498.8\pm45.17$ \\ \hline
757: 0.9-1 & $1124\pm68.87$ & $349.1\pm27.39$ & $322.1\pm25.87$ & $288.1\pm23.94$ & $448.3\pm44.89$ \\ \hline
758: 1-1.1 & $954.5\pm62.39$ & $288.2\pm24.38$ & $285.3\pm24.23$ & $265.9\pm23.11$ & $365\pm40.02$ \\ \hline
759: 1.1-1.2 & $832.1\pm58.34$ & $257.2\pm23.06$ & $245.4\pm22.25$ & $213.3\pm20.25$ & $273.8\pm34.08$ \\ \hline
760: 1.2-1.4 & $1268\pm72.57$ & $441.9\pm31.19$ & $362.6\pm27.1$ & $320.2\pm24.77$ & $393.8\pm41.64$ \\ \hline
761: 1.4-1.6 & $806.8\pm57.58$ & $306.9\pm26.38$ & $221.5\pm20.77$ & $190.8\pm18.71$ & $210.3\pm31.59$ \\ \hline
762: 1.6-1.8 & $540.8\pm23.27$ & $170.7\pm13.06$ & $146.2\pm12.14$ & $116.3\pm10.81$ & $126\pm11.31$ \\ \hline
763: 1.8-2 & $314.2\pm17.8$ & $119.2\pm10.97$ & $81.7\pm9.764$ & $68.35\pm9.093$ & $93.98\pm10.15$ \\ \hline
764: 2-2.5 & $388.1\pm21.21$ & $148.4\pm12.48$ & $135.7\pm12.01$ & $89.74\pm10.02$ & $109\pm12.33$ \\ \hline
765: 2.5-3 & $109.1\pm12.92$ & $36.33\pm6.809$ & $34.3\pm8.488$ & $30.64\pm7.487$ & $24.22\pm5.422$ \\ \hline
766: 3-4 & $82.18\pm12.30$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ \\ \hline
767:
768: \end{tabular}
769: \caption{$p$ raw signal table in minimum-bias, centrality selected
770: d+Au collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.}
771: \label{protontable}
772: \end{scriptsize}
773: \end{table}
774:
775:
776: \begin{table}[h]
777: \begin{scriptsize}
778: \centering
779: %\hspace{-4.pc}
780: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
781: \hline
782: $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) & d+Au Trigger & 0\%-20\% & 20\%-40\% & 40\%-100\% & p+p \\ \hline
783: 0.4-0.5 & $692.6\pm26.33$ & $215.1\pm14.67$ & $183\pm13.53$ & $202.8\pm14.26$ & $421.7\pm20.56$ \\ \hline
784: 0.5-0.6 & $1009\pm31.76$ & $310.8\pm17.63$ & $304\pm17.43$ & $268.5\pm16.39$ & $526.6\pm22.95$ \\ \hline
785: 0.6-0.7 & $1098\pm33.17$ & $317.9\pm17.84$ & $305.6\pm17.51$ & $327\pm18.11$ & $561.5\pm23.71$ \\ \hline
786: 0.7-0.8 & $1062\pm32.59$ & $340.2\pm18.44$ & $307\pm17.53$ & $285.5\pm16.9$ & $435.1\pm20.86$ \\ \hline
787: 0.8-0.9 & $992.2\pm31.5$ & $315.1\pm17.81$ & $284.4\pm16.96$ & $244.4\pm15.63$ & $376.4\pm19.4$ \\ \hline
788: 0.9-1 & $827.5\pm28.76$ & $288.9\pm17$ & $225\pm15.01$ & $202.6\pm14.24$ & $310.4\pm17.62$ \\ \hline
789: 1-1.1 & $724\pm26.91$ & $240.2\pm15.5$ & $181.5\pm13.48$ & $192.2\pm13.87$ & $246.4\pm15.7$ \\ \hline
790: 1.1-1.2 & $608.5\pm24.67$ & $161.3\pm12.7$ & $184.3\pm13.61$ & $149.8\pm12.25$ & $192\pm13.87$ \\ \hline
791: 1.2-1.4 & $914.9\pm30.24$ & $301.5\pm17.36$ & $269.7\pm16.42$ & $214.1\pm14.63$ & $269.6\pm16.42$ \\ \hline
792: 1.4-1.6 & $575.8\pm24$ & $204.9\pm14.32$ & $160.9\pm12.71$ & $120.5\pm10.98$ & $138.6\pm12.01$ \\ \hline
793: 1.6-1.8 & $407.2\pm20.18$ & $127.3\pm11.29$ & $108.1\pm10.43$ & $89.9\pm9.497$ & $100.6\pm10.63$ \\ \hline
794: 1.8-2 & $257.3\pm16.26$ & $73.85\pm8.992$ & $92.22\pm9.69$ & $46.81\pm7.802$ & $71.23\pm8.92$ \\ \hline
795: 2-2.5 & $305.6\pm18.45$ & $114\pm11.01$ & $83.43\pm9.464$ & $77.84\pm9.16$ & $64.02\pm10.44$ \\ \hline
796: 2.5-3 & $111\pm12.79$ & $28.91\pm6.26$ & $29.29\pm8.869$ & $20.55\pm7.198$ & $25.71\pm6.856$ \\ \hline
797: 3-4 & $67.05\pm11.87$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ & $---$ \\ \hline
798:
799: \end{tabular}
800: \caption{$\bar{p}$ raw signal table in minimum-bias, centrality
801: selected d+Au collisions and minimum-bias p+p collisions.}
802: \label{pbartable}
803: \end{scriptsize}
804: \end{table}
805: