Azimuthally-sensitive pion HBT in STAR

Transcription

1 Azimuthally-sensitive pion HBT in STAR Christopher Anson for the STAR collaboration Ohio State University

2 Outline Reconstructing the Reaction Plane HBT analysis and corrections for effects from v 2 and number of particles on reaction plane resolution effects from finite bin width Year 4 and Year 2 comparison, 200 GeV Year 4, 62.4 GeV results Excitation function 2

3 Motivation Energy dependence eccentricity at freeze-out constrains models Non-monotonic behavior may indicate interesting physics 3

4 Computing the reaction plane y LAB Q x LAB Reaction plane vector components are N particles Q x = w p t cos 2 n n=1 N particles Q y = w p t sin 2 n n=1 Finite number of particles and detector inefficiencies affect accuracy of reaction plane determination. Use charged particles in TPC (cuts on upcoming slide) 4

5 Correcting the reaction plane for detector effects Track reconstruction inefficiency biases reaction plane in certain directions. Phi-weight tracks with w = N, avg N Phi weighting makes reaction plane distribution isotropic. Reaction planes before Reaction planes after 25% effect 5

6 Event, track, and pair cuts Event Cuts: V z < 25 cm (200 GeV) V x & Vy < 1 cm η SymTPC < 3 V z < 30 cm (62 GeV) Track Cuts: Reaction Plane HBT analysis 0.15<P t <12.0 GeV/c 0.1 < P t < 1.0 GeV/c η <1.3 y < <nFitPts<50 nhits >= <nFitOverMax<1.05 2D DCA < 3.0 cm Sigma π <= 2 Sigma k,p,e > 2 Pair Cuts: HBT analysis 0.15 < K t < 0.6 GeV/c Anti-merging maxfracmergedpair= <quality<0.6 6

7 B R Reaction Plane resolution and finite angular bins 0 o 45 o 90 o 135 o Oscillations reduced by reaction plane resolution cos[2 m R ] and finite angular bins sin n /2 n / 2 Reaction Plane resolution vs. Centrality A R 2 out actuallyn q 200 GeV 62 GeV

8 Correction scheme Expand the correlation function with Fourier series where n bins /2 N exp q, j =N exp 0 q 2 [ N exp c, n q cos n j N exp s, n q sin n j ] n=1 n bins N exp c,n q = 1 n bins j=1 n bins N exp s, n q = 1 n bins j=1 N exp q, j cos n j N exp q, j sin n j The true numerator is then given by n bins / 2 N q, j =N exp q 2 n,m [ N exp c,n q cos n j N exp s,n q sin n j ] n=1 where the correction term is n, m = n /2 sin n /2 1 cos[n m R ] 1 Repeat for denominator and Coulomb interaction histogram. Correction Method from U. Heinz, A. Hummel, M.A. Lisa, and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2694 (1995). 8

9 Fitting procedure C q o,q s,q l = N q D q = 1 K Coul q inv 1 e q 2 o R 2 o q 2 s R 2 s q 2 l R 2 2 l 2q o q s R os Refit with λ = <λ> avg Au+Au 200 GeV 1.3 CF out q out CF 1.3 side CF 1.3 long q side q long

10 Computing Fourier Coefficients Fourier coefficients computed from radii: Au+Au 200 GeV Oscillations for 20-30% Centrality and K t = GeV/c R 0,i N bins 2 = j=1 R i 2 j i=o, s,l,os R 2 out R 2 side Uncorrected Corrected R 2, i N bins 2 = j=1 R i 2 j cos 2 j i=o, s,l 2 = R 2, i N bins R i 2 j sin 2 j j=1 i=os R 2 long φ R 2 os φ φ φ 10

11 Computing eccentricity at freeze-out Eccentricity from Blast-wave model: Eccentricity equation derived in Retiere and Lisa, nucl-th/ K t Average Method: Compute ε f for the three K t bins separately Simply average KtAvg = Kt1 Kt2 Kt3 3 K t Integrated Method: = R 2 2 y R x R 2 y R =2 R 2 s,2 2 2 x R s,0 Compute ε f for one K t Integrated correlation function 11

12 Y4 at 200 GeV Uncorrected vs Corrected Y4 200 GeV Uncorrected Y4 200 GeV Corrected The correction scheme increases the oscillations and therefore the eccentricities. 12

13 Y4 at 62.4 GeV Uncorrected vs Corrected Y GeV Uncorrected Y GeV Corrected The correction scheme increases the oscillations and therefore the eccentricities. 13

14 Y4 vs Y2 at 200 GeV Lowest K t bin 0 th order R out and R long a bit low Some differences present in the 2 nd order / 0 th order Y2, 200 GeV Y4, 200 GeV Kt = Year 2 data from J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004) 14

15 Y4 vs Y2 at 200 GeV Middle K t bin 0 th order agree pretty well Some differences present in the 2 nd order / 0 th order Y2, 200 GeV Y4, 200 GeV Year 2 data from J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004) 15

16 Y4 vs Y2 at 200 GeV Highest K t bin 0 th agree well Some differences present in the 2 nd order / 0 th order Y2, 200 GeV Y4, 200 GeV Year 2 data from J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004) 16

17 Y4 at 200 GeV K t Integrated Y4, 200 GeV Year 2 data from J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004) 17

18 Y4 vs Y2 at 200 GeV Y2 200 GeV, K t Avg Y4 200 GeV, K t Avg Y2 200 GeV, K t Avg Y4 200 GeV, K t Int Some differences (most central bin in particular) Physics extracted comes from 3 rd and 4 th bins which yield similar final eccentricity. 18

19 Fit Range Effects Fit Range: q < 0.15 GeV/c Lowest Kt, 0 th order disagree Y2 200 GeV, K t Avg Y4 200 GeV, K t Avg Y2, 200 GeV Y4, 200 GeV Year 2 data from J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004) 19

20 Fit Range Effects Fit Range: q < 0.12 GeV/c Lowest Kt, 0 th order agree better ε almost unchanged Y2 200 GeV, K t Avg Y4 200 GeV, K t Avg Y2, 200 GeV Y4, 200 GeV Year 2 data from J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004) 20

21 Y4 at 62.4 GeV Fit Range: q < 0.15 GeV/c Lowest K t bin Some scatter in R 2 s,2 / R 2 s,0 Y4, 62.4 GeV 21

22 Y4 at 62.4 GeV Fit Range: q < 0.15 GeV/c Middle K t bin Some scatter in R 2 s,2 / R 2 s,0 Y4, 62.4 GeV 22

23 Y4 at 62.4 GeV Fit Range: q < 0.15 GeV/c Highest K t bin Y4, 62.4 GeV 23

24 Y4 at 62.4 GeV Fit Range: q < 0.15 GeV/c K t Integrated Y4, 62.4 GeV 24

25 Y4 at 62.4 and 200 GeV Y GeV, K t Avg Y4 200 GeV, K t Avg Y GeV, K t Int Y4 200 GeV, K t Int 25

26 Excitation Function Y GeV greater than Y4 200 GeV (both K t Avg and K t Int cases) Y GeV slightly greater than Y2 200 GeV (K t Avg case) STAR Y4 preliminary Y10 BES 7.7, 11.5, 39 GeV Y11 BES 18, 29 GeV 26

27 Conclusions Preliminary Y GeV and Y4 200 GeV results suggest the excitation function is constant or slightly decreases at the higher energy. Further systematic studies needed. Need lower energies to determine shape of excitation function. Beam Energy Scan energies will fill in the excitation function 7.7 GeV, 11.5 GeV, 39 GeV Analysis in progress 18 GeV, 29 GeV Scheduled for Run 11 27

28 Backup slides 28

29 Close up of 62.4 and 200 GeV points Eccentricities at 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV Eccentricity Y Kt Avg Y Kt Int Y4 200 Kt Avg Y4 200 Kt Int Y2 200 Kt Avg Collision Energy (GeV) Energy Epsilon EpsError Y Kt Avg Y Kt Int Y4 200 Kt Avg Y4 200 Kt Int Y2 200 Kt Avg *Points in figure are slightly offset in energy for clarity. 29

30 Y4 200 GeV λ Fixed vs λ Free Y4 200 GeV, λ free Y4 200 GeV, λ fixed Y4 200 GeV, λ free Y4 200 GeV, λ fixed 30

31 Y GeV λ Fixed vs λ Free Y GeV, λ free Y GeV, λ fixed Y GeV, λ free Y GeV, λ fixed 31

32 Y4 200 GeV Two correction schemes Y4 200 GeV, Kt Avg, Radii Corrected Y4 200 GeV, Kt Avg, Histos Corrected Y4 200 GeV, Kt Int, Radii Corrected Y4 200 GeV, Kt Int, Histos Corrected 32

33 Y GeV Two correction schemes Y GeV, Kt Avg, Radii Corrected Y GeV, Kt Avg, Histos Corrected Y GeV, Kt Int, Radii Corrected Y GeV, Kt Int, Histos Corrected 33

34 Y4 Kt Integrated at 62.4 GeV 34

35 Y GeV vs Y2 200 GeV Kt Averaged 35

36 Y GeV Kt Int vs Y2 200 GeV KtAvg 36

37 Y4 Kt Averaged vs. Kt Integrated Y4 200 GeV, Kt Avg Y4 200 GeV, Kt Int Kt Integrated and Kt Averaged eccentricities are similar. 37