1 / 22

Multiplicity structure in inclusive and diffractive deep-inelastic ep collisions

XIII Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering 2005, Madison, Wisconsin. Multiplicity structure in inclusive and diffractive deep-inelastic ep collisions. Tinne Anthonis University of Antwerpen, Belgium. Outline Introduction Kinematic dependencies of DDIS Comparison DIS/DDIS

binah
Download Presentation

Multiplicity structure in inclusive and diffractive deep-inelastic ep collisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. XIII Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering 2005, Madison, Wisconsin Multiplicity structure in inclusive and diffractive deep-inelastic ep collisions Tinne Anthonis University of Antwerpen, Belgium Outline Introduction Kinematic dependencies of DDIS Comparison DIS/DDIS Conclusions

  2. Motivation • H1 analysis on 94 DDIS data: • Dependence of <n> on MX • H1 analysis on 2000 DDIS data: • Large statistics allowsmore differential study: W, Q2,  dependences at fixed MX • Compare DIS and DDIS

  3. Multiplicity structure Charged particle multiplicity of the hadronic final state • Shape of multiplicity distribution P(n) • Independent emission of single particles: Poisson distribution • Deviations from Poisson reveal correlations and dynamics • Mean multiplicity <n> of charged particles • Rapidity spectra • Koba-Nielsen-Olesen (KNO) scaling (z) • energy scaling of the multiplicity distribution • (z) = <n> Pn vs z = n/<n>

  4. Diffraction: ep ! e’XY ~ 10% of DIS events have a rapidity gap Cross section: Reduced cross section:

  5. Models for diffraction Combine QCD/Regge theory: resolved IP model • Proton infinite momentum frame • Colourless IP is built up of quarks/gluons • Based on QCD and Regge factorization: • Needs subleadingIR component

  6. Models for diffraction cont’d Colour dipole approach • In proton rest frame: * splits up in qq dipole • Model the dipole cross section: Saturation model Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff (GBW)

  7. Data selection DIS and DDIS • 2000 nominal vertex data: 46.65 pb-1 • Data corrected via Bayesian unfolding procedure: • DIS MC: DJANGOH 1.3, proton pdf CTEQ5L • DDIS MC: RAPGAP resolved pomeron DIS selection: • Good reconstruction of scattered electron • Kinematic cuts: • 0.05 < yav < 0.65 • 5 < Q2 < 100 GeV2 • 80 < W < 220 GeV DDIS selection: • Rapidity gap: • No activity in the forward detectors • max < 3.3 • Kinematic cuts: • 4 < MX < 36 GeV • xIP < 0.05

  8. Track selection • Primary vertex fitted tracks • 15 <  < 165 and pT > 150 MeV • Boost to hadronic *p CMS • Acceptance: • Resolution: tracks with * > 1 * *

  9. Multiplicity structure results Charged particles with *>1 in *p CMS frame • Multiplicity distribution and moments • Q2 dependence of <n> in DIS/DDIS at fixed W •  dependence of <n> in DDIS at fixed MX • W dependence of <n> in DDIS at fixed MX • Comparison of DIS and DDIS • Rapidity spectra • KNO scaling

  10. Kinematic relations DIS ymax=ln (W/m) W2 ~ Q2/x DDIS  = Q2/(Q2+MX2) gap ~ ln (1/xIP)

  11. Q2 dep. of <n> in DIS/DDIS at fixed W • <n> vs Q2 • DIS/DDIS data (at fixed MX) • No dependence on Q2 • Fit <n>: <n> = a + b log(Q2)

  12. Q2 dep. of dn/d(y-ymax) in DIS at fixed W • dn/d(y-ymax) vs y-ymax • ymax= ln(W/m) • Weak Q2 dependence (scaling violations in QCD) DIS: <n> predominantly function of W, not Q2

  13. Q2 dep. of dn/d(y-ymax) in DDIS at fixed W • dn/d(y-ymax) vs y-ymax • ymax= ln(W/m) • Weak Q2 dependence • Weak W dependence DDIS: <n> predominantly function of MX, not Q2

  14. dependence of <n> • Intuitive picture: expect no  dependence (no Q2 dependence measured)

  15. dependence of <n> low <n> • * fluctuation models: relative fraction of q and g fragmentation depends strongly on  high <n>

  16. dep. of <n> at fixed MX in DDIS • MX kept fixed • No  dependence DDIS: <n> predominantly function of MX, not Q2 or 

  17. W dependence of <n>? • Change of W means change the ‘gap’ • Gap ~ ln(1/xIP) • Investigate <n> dependence on xIP

  18. Wdep. of <n> at fixed MX in DDIS • Change W: change xIP • Regge factorisation: diffractive pdf’s independent of xIP • Breaking of Regge factorisation • In resolved IP model: pomeron + reggeon

  19. Wdep. of <n> at fixed MX in DDIS • Fit <n>: <n> = a + b log(W2) • Regge factorisation breaking expected in multiple scattering models • Effects predicted to diminish with increasing Q2 ( shorter interaction time) Factorisation breaking within errors, not dependent on Q2

  20. Comparison DIS/DDIS: rapidity spectra • dn/d(y-ymax) vs y-ymax • Central region: particle density similar for DIS and high MX DDIS • Lowest MX bin: systematically different

  21. Comparison DIS/DDIS: KNO scaling • Negative particles • (z) = <n> Pn vs z = n/<n> • Approximate KNO scaling for DIS and DDIS • Shape of KNO distribution similar for DIS and DDIS

  22. Conclusions Charged particle multiplicity • studied for DIS and DDIS • <n> in DIS depends only on W, not Q2 or x • <n> in DDIS depends mainly on MX and W, not Q2 or  • DIS and DDIS: rapidity spectra similar for highest MX • DIS and DDIS: approximate KNO scaling Kinematic dependencies Comparison DIS and DDIS

More Related