Geometric acceptance was originally found to be much higher, ~0.5

http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/pibero/QM2006/Acceptance/

But this was done with an embedded upsilon distribution that was flat in pT and rapidity.  The current distribution looks like:

Figure 1: Upsilon rapidity for 1s,2s,3s states.

Figure 2: Upsilon pT distribution

Since upsilons with |y|>1 are less likely to make the acceptance criteria as part of the criteria requires the BEMC which goes from |eta|<1.  So for now I am going to focus on |y| < 1.

Figure 3: pT distribution of upsilons with |y| < 1

The eta distribution of the daughter electrons starts as:

Figure 4: eta distribution of all electron daughters

Figure 5: eta distribution of electrons where the parent upsilon has a |y| < 1

This distribution also doesn't seem right, the peaks on either side seem to be too high.  Even a cut of |y| < 0.1 keeps the shape essentially the same, it just drops the numbers. This means that an extremely large percentage of electrons are going to fall outside of the acceptance since the BEMC is |eta| < 1.

Let's use |eta| < 1 as a faked acceptance.  It should give us a result close to what we'd expect, though it won't include the detector effects and the like that the embedded data set is for.

Figure 5: Upsilon distribution of upsilons with |eleEta|<1 && |posEta|<1.  Incidentally, it selecting on mid-rapidity gives exactly the same result.

So, for mid-rapidity the acceptance is 2685/30559 = 8.79 % +/-0.18%

and for all upsilons the acceptance is 2685/175224 = 1.53% +/-0.03%

Figure 6: Upsilon pT distribution for |eleEta|< 1 and |posEta|<1

This leaves us with a flat, yet extremely low pT efficiency.

Given that it appears that the problems with the embedded files are in the generation and decays of the upsilons, I think that our metric of using the energy depositted into the BEMC should be fine.  It appeared to work well.  It may be that the actual value needs to be revisted when a better data set is available.