230 likes | 258 Views
This study investigates the mean charged multiplicity in different scattering processes and energy scales using event selection techniques and correction methods. Data from 1996-97 with 735,007 events were analyzed to compare observed results to Monte Carlo predictions.
E N D
Charged Particle Multiplicity in DIS Preliminary Request M. Rosin, D. Kçira, and A. Savin University of Wisconsin L. Shcheglova Moscow State University, Institute of Nuclear Physics June 7th, 2004
Outline • Introduction and motivation • Data selection & simulation • Control plots • Correction methods: • Bin by bin (modified) • Matrix • <nch> vs. Meff • with MC predictions • In bins of x • In bins of x and Q2 • Systematics • Comparison to second analysis • Summary and plan
Motivation • Mean charged multiplicity, <nch> , vs. Q shows logarithmic dependence for both e+e- and pp on the effective energy going into hadronization, and dependence is universal • For pp and e+e- hadronization is universal when you go to proper scale: √s for e+e- reactions, effective energy going into hadron production, √q2 for pp.
Motivation • ep points measured in current region of Breit frame(x2) vs. Q, shows nice agreement • Expect that mean charged multiplicity for ep (measured in lab frame) and pp (and e+e-) are universal, when plotted against energy going into hadron production.
Motivation for the use of Meff as energy scale • Analogous to the pp study, want to measure the dependence of <nch> of on it’s total invariant mass. (Energy available for hadronization) • For ep in lab frame, measure visible part of <nch> with visible part of energy available for hadronization: should show same universality as total <nch> and total energy • Use Meff as scale for comparing to pp (and e+e-) Whad Meff Lab Frame Meff: HFS measured in the detector where the tracking efficiency is maximized
1996-97 Data sample • Event Selection • Scattered positron found with E > 12 GeV • A reconstructed vertex with |Zvtx| < 50 cm • Scattered positron position cut: radius > 25cm • 40 GeV < E-pz < 60 GeV • Diffractive contribution excluded by requiring ηmax> 3.2 • Track Selection • Tracks associated with primary vertex • || < 1.75 • pT > 150 MeV • Physics and Kinematic Requirement • Q2 da > 25 GeV2 • y el < 0.95 • y JB > 0.04 • 70 GeV < W < 225 GeV ( W2 = (q + p)2 ) 735,007 events after all cuts (38.58 pb-1)
Event simulation • Ariadne ’97 6v2.4 • Matrix elements at LO pQCD O(s) • Parton showers: CDM • Hadronization: String Model • Proton PDF’s: CTEQ-4D Luminosity of MC : 36.5 pb-1
Kinematic Variables • 96-97 data compared to ARIADNE and LEPTO for kinematic variables • Both ARIADNE and LEPTO show good agreement for kinematic variables
Meff and Tracks • LEPTO and ARIADNE comparisons to tracks and Meff • Tracks better described by ARIADNE • Meff better described by LEPTO
Correction to hadron level: bin by bin Part one: correct to hadron level using only hadrons generated with pT > 0.15 GeV Part two: correct for hadrons with lower pT, using ratio of <gen> with pT cut to <gen> no pT cut in each bin.
Correction to hadron level: bin by bin Correction for detector effects Correction of hadrons of pT > 0.15 to all hadrons
No. of events with p tracks generated when o tracks were observed Mp,o = No. events with o tracks observed Correction to hadron level: matrix The matrix relates the observed to the generated distributions of tracks in each bin of Meff by: • Matrix corrects tracks to hadron level • ρ corrects phase space to hadron level Hadrons passing gen level cuts ρ = Hadrons passing det level cuts
Comparison of correction methods • Better than 2% agreement in all Meff bins • bin-by- bin considered as a systematic
Results with MC predictions • Good agreement with 1995 prelim. points, with smaller statistical, systematic errors • Observe a significant difference between ep, e+e- and pp. • ARIADNE describes data dependence, LEPTO higher than the data • Check for ep points: does <nch> dependence on Meff change depending on scale?
<nch> vs. Meff in x bins • if difference is due to quark and gluon distributions, then maybe also x dependence • x range split into similar bins as in previous multiplicity paper. • weak x dependence in both data and MC observed
x and Q2 bins • No Q2 dependence observed • Data described by ARIADNE • LEPTO above data
Comparison to 2nd analysis in Q2 and x bins • Agreement between 1st and 2nd analysis within 1% for matrix for x and Q2 bins
Comparison to 2nd analysis • For full kinematic range, agreement between 1st and 2nd analysis is less than 1% for both correction methods.
Summary • Shown 3 preliminary plots • Measured in x and Q2 bins, weak x dependence not enough to compensate for difference between ep and pp. No Q2 dependence. • Observed difference in dependence of <nch> on Meff between ep and pp (and e+e-) is real • Plan • Measure <nch> in current region of Breit frame vs. Meff (instead of Q) • Study diffractive events; combine ARIADNE & RAPGAP