1
Analysis of the dielectron continuum in Au+Au @ 200
GeVwith PHENIX Alberica Toiafor the PHENIX Collaboration
• Physics Motivation • Analysis Strategy (765M events)
– Cuts• Single electron cuts • Electron pair cuts: remove hit sharing
– Spectra: Foreground, Background (mix events), Subtracted
– Efficiency / Acceptance• Cocktail & theory comparison
2
Physics Motivation: em probes
space
time
Hard Scattering
AuAu
Exp
ansi
on
Hadronization
Freeze-out
QGPThermaliztion
e- e+
electro-magnetic radiation: , e+e-, +-
rare, emitted “any time”; reach detector unperturbed by strong final state interaction
3
e+e Pair Continuum at RHIC
Expected sources• Light hadron decays
– Dalitz decays – Direct decays and
• Hard processes– Charm (beauty)
production – Important at high mass &
high pT
– Much larger at RHIC than at the SPS
• Cocktail of known sources– Measure , spectra &
yields– Use known decay
kinematics– Apply detector
acceptance– Fold with expected
resolution
Possible modifications
suppression (enhancement)
Chiral symmetry restoration continuum enhancement modification of vector mesons
thermal radiationcharm modificationexotic bound states
R. Rapp nucl-th/0204003R. Rapp nucl-th/0204003
e-
e+
4
Electron IdentificationPHENIX optimized for Electron ID• track + • Cherenkov light RICH + • shower EMCAL
Charged particle tracking: DC, PC1, PC2, PC3 and TECExcellent mass resolution (1%)
Pair cuts (to remove hit sharing)
Energy-Momentum
All charged tracks
Background
Net signalReal
RICH cut
PC1
PC3
DC
magnetic field &tracking detectors
e+e
5
Which belongs to which? Combinatorial background e+ e- eeeeee0 e+ e- 0 e+ e- 0 e+ e- 0 e+ e-PHENIX 2 arm spectrometer acceptance:
dNlike/dm ≠ dNunlike/dm different shape need event mixinglike/unlike differences preserved in event mixing Same
normalization for like and unlike sign pairs
Combinatorial Background
--- Foreground: same evt--- Background: mixed evt BG fits to FG
0.1%
RATIO
6
• Different independent normalizations used to estimate sys error– Measured like sign yield – Event counting: Nevent / Nmixed events– Poisson assumption: N± = 2√N++N—– Track counting: ‹N±› = ‹N+›‹N-›
• All the normalizations agree within 0.5%
Combinatorial Background
Systematic uncertainty: 0.25%Systematic uncertainty: 0.25% e+ e -
e+ e -
--- Foreground: same evt--- Background: mixed evt
7
Photon conversion rejection
Mass [GeV/c2]
--- without conversion --- with conversion
air
Support structures
Conversion removed with orientation angle of the pair in the magnetic field
Photon conversion
e+e- at r≠0 have m≠0(artifact of PHENIX tracking)• effect low mass region• have to be removed
r ~ mee
beampipe
8
Subtracted spectrum
All the pairsCombinatorixSignal
BG normalized to Measured like sign yield
Integral:180,000 above 0:15,000
Green band: systematic uncertainty• Acceptance• Efficiency• Run-by-run
9
Signal to Background• Very low signal to
background ratio in the interesting region main systematic uncertainty
Yellow band: error on combinatorial background normalization
Green band: other systematics
signal/signal = BG/BG * BG/signal0.25% large!!!
10
A closer look at resonances
Upsilon???
J/psi
phiAgreement with other analyses
11
Cocktail comparison
• Data and cocktail absolutely normalized
•Cocktail from hadronic sources•Charm from PYTHIAPredictions are filtered in PHENIX acceptance
•Good agreement in 0 Dalitz•Continuum:hint for enhancement not significant within systematics
•What happens to charm?•Single e pt suppression•angular correlation???
• LARGE SYSTEMATICS!
12
Data/cocktail
Measurement [10-5 counts/event]
Predictions[10-5 counts/event]
0.15-0.7 GeV/c2 17.8 ± 3.8 ± 1.50 12.3
1.1-2.5 GeV/c2 0.67 ± 0.50 ± 0.11 1.16
13
Comparison with theory
R.Rapp, Phys.Lett. B 473 (2000)R.Rapp, Phys.Rev.C 63 (2001)R.Rapp, nucl/th/0204003
• Systematic error too large to distinguish predictions• Mainly due to S/B• Need to improve
HBD
• calculations for min bias• QGP thermal radiation included
14
A Hadron Blind Detector (HBD) for PHENIX
S/B ~ 100x
Irreducible charm background
signal electron
Cherenkov blobs
partner positronneeded for rejection e+
e-
pair opening angle
~ 1 m
• Dalitz rejection via opening angle – Identify electrons in field free region– Veto signal electrons with partner
• HBD concept: – windowless CF4 Cherenkov detector – 50 cm radiator length– CsI reflective photocathode – Triple GEM with pad readout
• Construction/installation 2005/2006
S/B increased by factor 100
15
Summary & Outlook
• First dielectron continuum measurement at RHIC– Despite of low signal/BG– Thanks to high statistics– Good understanding of background normalization
• Measurement consistent with cocktail predictions within the errors– Improvement of the systematic uncertainty
• HBD upgrade will reduce background great improvement of systematic and statistical uncertainty
“The most beautiful sea hasn't been crossed yet. And the most beautiful words I wanted to tell you I haven't said yet ...“ (Nazim Hikmet)
16
Backup
17
Single electron cuts• Event cut:
– zvertex <= 25• Single electron cuts:
– Pt: = 150 MeV – 20 GeV– Ecore >= 150 MeV– Match PC3 & EMC
• PC3 (Phi+z) < 3 sigma• EMC (Phi+z) < 3 sigma
– Dispmax < 5 (ring displacement)– N0min >= 3 tubes– dep >= -2 sigma (overlapping
showers NOT removed)– chi2/npe0 < 10– Quality = 63, 51, 31
18
Pair cuts
RICH ghosts (like and unlike sign)Post Field Opening Angle < 0.988
--- Foreground: same evt--- Background: mixed evt
like
Cos(PFOA)
DC ghosts (like sign): fabs(dphi) < 0.1 rad fabs(dz) < 1.0 cm
19
Systematic error
• Systematic error of simulation – Acceptance difference between real/simulation is
less than: 3%.– Single e eID efficiency difference between
real/simulation is less than 8.8%.• Dep < 1%, emcsdphie < 1%, emcsdze < 1%, n0 <
7%, chi2/npe0 < 1%, disp < 5%.
• Systematic error of real data– Stability of acceptance: 5%– Stability of eID efficiency: 5%
• Other correction factor– Embedding efficiency < 10% (Run2 7%).
• Background Normalization
20
Acceptance filter
Roughly parametrized from data
char
ge/
pT
0
0
z vertex
• Decoupling acceptance – efficiency corrections• Define acceptance filter (from real data)• Correct only for efficiency IN the acceptance• “Correct” theory predictions IN the acceptance• Compare
ACCEPTANCE FILTER
21
Efficiency2 sets of simulations of dielectron pairs
•White in mass (0-4GeV)•White in pT (0-4GeV)•Vertex(-30,30), rapidity (1unit), phi (0,2)
•Linearly falling mass (0-1GeV)•Linearly falling pT (0-1GeV)•Vertex(-30,30), rapidity (1unit), phi (0,2)
2D efficiency corrections:Mass vs pT
22
Single e distribution: Poisson
0-10%
20-30%
10-20%
30-40%
23
Normalization of combinatorial backgroundSame normalization used for like and unlike sign pairs 4 different (independent) normalizations:
• Akiba : Nevent / Nmixed events• Hemmick: N± = 2√N++N—• Zajc: ‹N±› = ‹N+›‹N-›• Drees: 0.5*( (IntegralFG++(0.15-4 GeV) / IntegralBG++(0.15-4 GeV)) + (IntegralFG-- (0.15-4 GeV) / IntegralBG-- (0.15-4 GeV)) )
Normalization factors [10-2]• akiba: 8.74• hemmick: 8.69• zajc: 8.71• drees: 8.70
upper limit: Integral in charm region=0 Normalization factor 8.75
All normalizations agree within 0.5%
All normalizations agree within 0.5%
24
The unfiltered calculations
•black: our standard cocktail•red : hadronic spectrum using the VACUUM rho spectral function•green: hadronic spectrum using the IN-MEDIUM rho spectral function•blue : hadronic spectrum using a rho spectral function with DROPPING MASS•magenta : QGP spectrum using the HTL-improved pQCD rate