1 / 15

Feasibility of   γγ study with ECAL

Feasibility of   γγ study with ECAL. Sergey Kiselev, ITEP Moscow, for the ECAL group Introduction Input info and assumptions Acceptance γ s pectra γ origin S/B vs resolution S/B vs p t S/B vs E beam S/B vs WA98 data Conclusions. Introduction: previous conclusions (10 th CBM).

sarai
Download Presentation

Feasibility of   γγ study with ECAL

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. Feasibility of  γγ study with ECAL • Sergey Kiselev, ITEP Moscow, for the ECAL group • Introduction • Input info and assumptions • Acceptance • γ spectra • γorigin • S/B vs resolution • S/B vs pt • S/B vs Ebeam • S/B vs WA98 data • Conclusions 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  2. Introduction: previous conclusions (10th CBM) • OCT04, central Au+Au 25 AGeV, 2 arms ECAL •   γγ:S/B ~ 0.1 – 0.3 % • π0 ID  higher S/B (~ 25% ) • higher pγcut ( > 1 GeV/c)  higher S/B (80% ) 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  3. Input info and assumptions • CbmRoot package (AUG07), Geant3 • 105 UrQMD Au+Au central events at E/A=15, 25, 35 GeV • ECAL: energy resolution σE = 3%/√E, 6%/√E, 9%/√E, ideal γ and πo  2γ reconstruction • Central rapidity region  the ECAL ring:lab = 90 – 200 , ρ = 190 – 440 cm, S = 49 m2 • pγ cut: pγ > 0.3 GeV/c 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  4. Central rapidity region lab = 90 – 200 15 AGeV: c.m. = 500 – 900 25 AGeV: c.m. = 600 – 1050 35 AGeV: c.m. = 700 – 1150 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  5. Acceptance 25 AGeV 1 event: ~ 12 primary  Br = 40%  5   γγ ~ 10% of   γγ are in the ECAL ring 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  6. γspectra 25 AGeV 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  7. γorigin 25 AGeV π0 e  TOF STS TRD RHIC 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  8. S/B2σ vs resolution 25 AGeV Signal width (~10, 20, 30 MeV) ~ energy resolution (3, 6, 9%) 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  9. S/B2σ vs pt 25 AGeV, 6%/√E Signal width =21, 19, 16 MeV for pt = 0.4-0.8, 0.8-1.2, 1.2-1.6 GeV/c 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  10. S/B2σ vs Ebeam 6%/√E S/B ~ 1/(γ mult.) 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  11. S/B2σ (%) vs (Ebeam, pt ) For significance ~ 10, ~107 events needed 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  12. 2 arms vs the ring 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  13.   γγWA98 data nucl-ex/0006007 σ/E=5.5%/√E 6.7 106central events mixed event technique S/B ~ 0.3% Our S/B estimation is in reasonable agreement with the WA98 data. UrQMD overestimates (~30%) pion yields. Our S/B should be multiplied by a factor ~ 1.5 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  14. WA98: π0 suppression in central Pb+Pb nucl-ex/0701043: π0 data for p+C, p+Pb as reference for Pb+Pb π0 suppression  lower background  larger S/B 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

  15. Conclusions and next steps • OCT04 and AUG07 are in reasonable agreement •   γγ:S/B ~ 0.1 – 0.3 % • higher pγ higher S/B • For significance ~ 10, 107 events needed. • WA98: S/B =0.3% by mixed event technique • Next step: take into account γ reconstruction efficiency 12th CBM Collaboration meeting, Dubna S.Kiselev ITEP

More Related