I think JH has a good suggestion. Is it possible to get the plot again with different color and/or symbol for BB and MULT? That might help to disentangle vertex effects in MULT from non-vertex dependent effects to which the BB may be sensitive. The discussion may also be helped by plotting a symmetric distribution on top of the data so we could get a better 'feel' for how asymmetric it really is... Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov [mailto:owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov]On Behalf Of > J.H. Lee > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:03 PM > To: brahms-l@bnl.gov > Subject: dN/deta, Asymmetry, Background (Re: dndeta figures for > impacients ) > > > Hiro, > > It's nice! > > It's quite cusious that the distribution is asymmetric but quite smooth, > which might suggest that asymmetries in the distributions from > the BB and the Si/Tile are coming from the same source. > One thing we can easily think of for the distortion is some errors in > the vertex determination. But we know that multiplicity > distributions from the BB Counters are not so sensitive to the vertex > positions. So the asymmetry in the distribution is probably not due to > miscalculated vertex positions. > Then, is it possible that the background (not from collisions) is > asymmetric? > I think it might be useful to look at multiplicity/ADC distributions > in the detectors (Si,Tile,BB) from data sets taken with uncogged beam > to understand how much and how asymmetrically the detectors see > background as Dana and Flemming looked at background hits in the FS. > > Regards, JH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hironori Ito" <hito@students.phsx.ukans.edu> > To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:48 PM > Subject: dndeta figures for impacients > > > > Hello. I made (revised) the dndeta for this year run. It is > > located in "http://pii3.brahms.bnl.gov/~hito/dndeta/2001/dndeta_200.gif" > > It is meant to be used for starting discussion of mult paper > and not to be > > used for showing in the conference. Although I am not sure who is the > > paper commitee for this year, if you were in the last year, you can > > certainly start thinking about the new paper. About the figure, > > although it is not final figure, from my estimate, it is very close to > > final. It is not like the one I made earlier for presentation which did > > not have right normaization as I stated at that point. (Steve and I > > still have a bit more of checks and changes to do. like it is not quite > > symmetic.) Anyway, the paper commitee should start thinking > about it if > > we are going for PRL. > > > > hiro > > > > (Note: Cuts on the figures are 0-5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40 > and 40-50%) > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 04:14:33 EDT
