Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dijet Production in Polarized Proton-Proton Collisions at 200 Gev
Dijet Production in Polarized Proton-Proton Collisions at 200 Gev
Proton-Proton Collisions at
200 GeV
Matthew Walker
STAR
Outline
✦ Theoretical Motivation
✦ Experimental Overview
✦ Cross Section Analysis
✦ Asymmetry Analysis
✦ Conclusions
Theoretical Motivation
2
mple
ge of of how the ∆χ = 1 does not
uncertainty. – –
the available sets of fragmentation
he first moments of0.04u and x!ud resemble a parabola x!d 0.04
six units relative to those from KRE, due to the
hat the overall goodness of KKP fit is poorer than
0.02 0.02
tes for δd computed with the respective best fits
e to the
✦
ideal situation. However for δu, they only
Polarized 0 DIS tells
∆χ2us = 1that
does the
1 1
very good example of
spin contribution
how the
from quark
not = ∆Σ + Lq + ∆G + Lg 0
2
DNS DSSV !" =1
-0.04 0.2 KRE -0.04
Without RHIC data
DNS KKP DSSV !" =2%
2 With RHIC data
– 0.3
x!s 0 0.4 x!g
0.04
–
x!g 0.2
0.02 Substantial
-0.2 0.2 improvement for
0.1
0.05 < x < 0.2,
0
0.06 but large
0 0 uncertainties at
KRE (NLO) 0.04
-0.02 low x
KKP (NLO) -0.1
unpolarized
2
KRE "min+1
-0.04 0.02 -0.2 GRSV maxg
2
KRE "min+2% GRSV ming -0.2
x
0-110 -2 1 0.06
-1 -2 -1
xx
10-2 10 10 10 10 1
x!s
– x
KRE (NLO)
-0.02
D. de Florian et al., Phys. Rev.0.04
D71, 094018 (2005). D. de Florian et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 072001
KKP (NLO)
STAR Matthew Walker unpolarized
2 April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 3
-0.04KRE " +1
Theoretical Motivation
Extracting gluon polarization
1 1
✦
= ∆Σ + Lq + ∆G + Lg
d∆σ ∆f1 ⊗ ∆f2 ⊗ σh · aLL ⊗ Dfh
2 2
ALL = =
dσ f1 ⊗ f2 ⊗ σh ⊗ Dfh
aLL
1 qg → qg
0.75 gg → gg
0.5
∆f1 0.25
qq → qq q q̄ → q q̄
σh 0
-0.25
∆f2 -0.5
-0.75
gg → q q̄
-1
cosθ*
long-range short-range long-range
! 1
Extract ∆g(x,Q2) using a global fit ∆G(Q2 ) = ∆g(x, Q2 )dx
0
STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 4
Inclusive jets
✦ RHIC produces
polarized proton
beams up to 250
GeV in energy
✦ Siberian snake
magnets in the
AGS and RHIC
help protect beam
from depolarizing
resonances
!=1
BEMC
Blue
BBC Yellow
TPC
West
East
Not shown:
Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT (2010) Tai Sakuma
Zero-degree calorimeters,
time-of-flight, polarimeters
STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 8
Jet Terminology
Jet Tracks, Energy Depositions
detector
Detector Effects
π0
π+
particle
Hadrons, Leptons
g
Partons
3
10
3
10
Data
Run 5 di-jet
yields
3 ✦
Simulation 10
data shows
2
10
2
10
good
10 agreement with
10 simulations
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
✦ Asymmetric pT
1.5 1.5 1.5
cut applied to
the jets for
simulation
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
comparison
with more
data/
1 1 1
stable NLO
calculations
0.9 0.9 0.9
√ η3 + η4 1 x1 ∗ η3 − η4
M= x1 x2 s η34 = = ln cos θ = tanh
2 2 x2 2
dσ (pb/GeV/c2)
STAR Run 5 Data
2005 STAR Data with Statistical Uncertainties
4
10
Systematic Uncertainties
dM
NLO Calculation (de Florian, et al.)
103
NLO with Hadronization and UE Corrections
102
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Scale Uncertainty on Invariant Mass
NLO, µ = 2M, M/2(GeV)
0.5
-0.5
-1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)
M (GeV/c2)
Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT 2010
STAR Preliminary
✦ NLO theory predictions using
d3!/dMd!3d!4 [pb/GeV]
103 ! !1
CTEQ6M provided by de
Ldt = 5.39pb
! Florian with and without
d 3! corrections for hadronization
102 dMd!3d!4 and underlying event from
PYTHIA
STAR Run-6
10
Systematic Uncertainty
✦ Statistical Uncertainties as
Theory
lines, systematics as rectangles
NLO pQCD + CTEQ6M
1 Had. and UE. Corrections
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mjj [GeV]
Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT (2010)
!
Ldt = 5.39 pb !1 STAR Preliminary
! ✦ Comparison to theory
(including hadronization
0.5
(Data - Theory) / Theory
agreement within
systematic uncertainties
-0.5
Data-theory Comparison
of Dijet Cross Section
STAR Run-6 ✦ Agreement confirms our
pp @ 200 GeV Theory: use of pQCD to extract
CTEQ6M
gluon polarizations
-1.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mjj [GeV]
Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT (2010)
GLOW
Amazon
NERSC
EC2 STAR
Clemson
N Machines
1400
transferred to BNL
Available Machines
1200
✦ Expansion of 25% of STAR Working Machines
0
Jul17 Jul24 Jul31
Date
Normalized Yields
6
10 p+p → Jet + Jet + X
Data s = 200 GeV
10
5 Simulation 10
5
5
10
simulation
|Δ η| < 1.0
10
3 104
|Δ φ| > 2.0
agreement is 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
good 1 1 1
(Data-Simu)/Simulation
0 0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Invariant Mass (GeV/c 2 ) Invariant Mass (GeV/c 2 ) Invariant Mass (GeV/c 2 )
A Like-sign A Unlike-sign
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
Consistent 0 0
-0.1 -0.1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Invariant Mass (GeV/c 2 ) Invariant Mass (GeV/c 2 )
DSSV
0.03
GRSV STD
GRSV Zero
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)
A LL
A LL
0.08 MC GS-C(pdf set NLO)
0.08 Scale uncertainty 0.08
√
GRSV std s = 200 GeV
2009 STAR Data
DSSV p + p → jet + jet + X
0.06 Systematic Uncertainties 0.06 0.06
0 0 0
STAR Preliminary
-0.02 -0.02 -0.02
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
4 4
10 10
3 3
10 10
2 2
10 10
X X
X X
1 1
x
-1 -1
10 10
STAR Preliminary
x1
√
s = 200 GeV x2
p + p → jet + jet + X
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2 2
Invariant Mass (GeV/c ) Invariant Mass (GeV/c )
East - East and West - West Barrel East Barrel - West Barrel Full Acceptance
A LL
A LL
A LL
0.08 MC GS-C(pdf set NLO)
0.08 Scale uncertainty 0.08
√
GRSV std s = 200 GeV
2009 STAR Data
DSSV p + p → jet + jet + X
0.06 Systematic Uncertainties 0.06 0.06
0 0 0
STAR Preliminary
-0.02 -0.02 -0.02
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Unfolded Yield
160
49 < M < 64 140
80
to this true bin from each of 60
0
contribution from the same 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)
Unfolded Yield
Unfolded Yield
Unfolded Yield
1200 1600
1200
1400
1000
1000
1200
800
1000 800
600 800
600
600
400
400
400
200 200
200
0 0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 20 30 40 60 50 70 80 90 100 110 20 60 7030 40
80 5090 100 110
Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2) Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2) Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)
Contributions to corrected bin 48.83 < Mparticle < 64.15 Contributions to corrected bin 64.15 < Mparticle < 85.92
Contributions to corrected bin 37.90 < Mparticle < 48.83
18
Unfolded Yield
Unfolded Yield
Unfolded Yield
600
160
16
500 140 14
120 12
400
100 10
300
80 8
200 60 6
40 4
100
20 2
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)
Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2) Reconstructed
Contributions to corrected bin 85.92 Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)
< Mparticle < 117.29
Unfolded Yield
0.6
bins 0.5
0.4
0.2
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
7 October 2009 Collaboration Meeting Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2) 38
UNFOLDING
Method used based on G. D’Agostini, NIM A 362 (1995), p. 487.
Also used by (along with H1, ZEUS, HARP, and others):
IceCube: arXiv:0811.1671
L3: arXiv: hep-ex/0507042
D0: arXiv: hep-ex/9807029
Use PYTHIA to populate the unfolding matrix A (in the naming convention
of D’Agostini) using the reconstructed invariant mass and the particle
invariant mass
Normalize so that A does not change the integral of the spectrum
The following equation describes the matrix elements of A:
J(reconstructed bin j|particle bin i)
αij =
J(reconstructed bin j)
(pb/GeV/c2)
2005 STAR Data with Statistical Uncertainties
4 Systematic Uncertainties
10
Tai Run 5 BHT2 Data
dMdη3dη4
Tai Run 6 BHT2 Data
dσ
3
10 Tai Run 5 BJP2 Data
Tai Run 6 BJP1 Data
102
10
10-1
(Data-Matt)/Matt
ALL
show effects on trigger 0.02
efficiency from different
theory scenarios 0.00
A LL
MC
GRSV std
Scale uncertainty
0.05 GRSV m03 0.05 GRSV std
GRSV zero
GS-C(pdf set NLO)
DSSV
0.04 2009 STAR Data
0.04
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0 0
-0.01 -0.01
STAR Projected Precision
-0.02 -0.02
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80