 Hard Probes
 Heavy Flavor
 Jetlike correlations
 Other Groups
 Peripheral Collisions
 Spin
 Spin PWG
 Spin/ColdQCD Older Physics Analysis
 2006 EEMC Neutral Pion Cross Section and A_LL
 2006 Gamma + Jet
 2009 Lambda D_LL @ 200 GeV
 2009 dijet xsect/A_LL @ 200 GeV
 2011 FMS Jetlike correlations @ 500 GeV
 2011 FMS inclusive pions @ 500 GeV
 2012 EEMC Neutral Pion A_LL
 2012 Jet A_LL @ 500 GeV
 2012 Lambda D_TT @200GeV
 2012 Pi0  Jet A_LL @ 500
 2012 Pions in Jets A_UT @ 200 GeV
 2012 dijet A_LL @ 500
 2012/13 FMS A_LL @ 500 GeV
 2013 Dijet A_LL @ 500 GeV
 A New Users Guide to PDSF Success
 Analyses from the early years
 (A) List of Physics Analysis Projects (obsolete)
 Common Analysis Trees
 EEMC Direct Photon Studies (Pibero Djawotho, 20062008)
 2006.07.31 First Look at SMD gamma/pi0 Discrimination
 2006.08.04 Second Look at SMD gamma/pi0 Discrimination
 2006.08.06 Comparison between EEMC fast and slow simulator
 2006.09.15 Fit Parameters
 2007.02.05 Reconstructed/Monte Carlo Photon Energy
 2007.02.08 E_reco / E_mc vs. eta
 2007.02.11 Reconstructed/Monte Carlo Muon Energy
 2007.02.15 160 GeV photons
 2007.02.15 20 GeV photons
 2007.02.15 80 GeV photons
 2007.02.15 Reconstructed/Monte Carlo Electron Energy
 2007.02.19 10 GeV photons
 2007.02.19 40 GeV photons
 2007.02.19 5 GeV photons
 2007.02.19 Summary of Reconstructed/Monte Carlo Photon Energy
 2007.05.24 gamma/pi0 separation in EEMC using linear cut
 2007.05.24 gamma/pi0 separation in EEMC using quadratic cut
 2007.05.24 gamma/pi0 separation in EEMC using quadratic cut
 2007.05.30 Efficiency of reconstructing photons in EEMC
 2007.06.12 gamma/pi0 separation in EEMC at pT 510 GeV
 2007.06.28 Photons in Pythia
 2007.07.09 How to run the gamma fitter
 2007.07.25 Revised gamma/pi0 algorithm in 2006 p+p collisions at sqrt(s)=200 GeV
 2007.09.12 Endcap Electrons
 2008.01.23 Endcap etas
 2008.02.27 ESMD shape library
 2008.02.28 ESMD QA for run 7136033
 2008.03.04 A second look at eta mesons in the STAR Endcap Calorimeter
 2008.03.08 Adding the SMD energy to E_reco/E_MC for Photons
 2008.03.21 Chi square method
 2008.04.08 DataDriven Shower Shapes
 2008.04.12 DataDriven Residuals
 2008.04.12 Pythia GammaJets
 2008.04.16 Jet Finder QA
 2008.04.20 BUR 2009
 2008.04.22 Run 6 Photon Yield Per Trigger
 2008.05.07 Number of Jets
 2008.05.09 Gammajets pT distributions
 2008.05.19 Binning the shower shape library
 2008.06.03 Jet A_LL Systematics
 2008.06.18 Photonjet reconstruction with the EEMC  Part 2 (STAR Collaboration Meeting  UC Davis)
 2008.07.16 Extracting A_LL and DeltaG
 2008.07.20 How to install Pythia 6 and 8 on your laptop?
 2008.07.23 Hot Strips Identified by Hal Spinka
 2008.07.24 Strips from Weihong's 2006 ppLong 20 runs
 G/h Discrimination Algorithm (Willie)
 Neutral Pions 2005: Frank Simon
 Neutral strange particle transverse asymmetries (tpb)
 Photonjet with the Endcap (Ilya Selyuzhenkov)
 Relative Luminosity Analysis
 Run 6 Dijet Cross Section (Tai Sakuma)
 Run 6 Dijet Double Longitudinal Spin Asymmetry (Tai Sakuma)
 Run 6 Inclusive Jet Cross Section (Tai Sakuma)
 Run 6 Neutral Pions
 Run 6 Relative Luminosity (Tai Sakuma)
 Run 8 trigger planning (Jim Sowinski)
 Run 9
 Beam Polarizations
 Charged Pions
 Fully Reconstructed Ws
 Jet Trees
 W 2009 analysis , pp 500 GeV
 W 2011 AL
 Useful Links
 Working Group Members
2007.05.30 Efficiency of reconstructing photons in EEMC
Updated on Fri, 20100716 12:08. Originally created by seluzhen on 20100716 11:26.
Under:
Pibero Djawotho Last updated Wed May 30 00:32:16 EDT 2007
Efficiency of reconstructing photons in EEMC
Monte Carlo sample
 10k photons
 STAR y2006 geometry
 zvertex=0
 Flat in pt 1030 GeV
 Flat in eta 1.02.1
SMD gamma/pi0 discrimination algorithm
The following
from the IUCF STAR Web site gives a brief overview of the SMD gamma/pi0 discrimination algorithm using the method of maximal sided fit residual (data  fit). This technique comes to STAR EEMC from the Tevatron via Les Bland via Jason Webb. The specific fit function used in this analysis is:
f(x)=[0]*(0.69*exp(0.5*((x[1])/0.87)**2)/(sqrt(2*pi)*0.87)+0.31*exp(0.5*((x[1])/3.3)**2)/(sqrt(2*pi)*3.3))
x is the strip id in the SMDu or SMDv plane. The widths of the narrow and wide Gaussians are determined from empirical fits of shower shape response in the EEMC from simulation.
Optimizing cuts for gamma/pi0 separation
In the rest of this analysis, only those photons which have reconstructed pt > 5 GeV are kept. There is no requirement that the photon doesn't convert. The dividing curve between photons and pions is:
f(x)=4*x+1e7*x**5
The yaxis is integrated yield over the SMDu and SMDv plane, and the xaxis is the sum of the maximal sided residual of the SMDu and SMDv plane.
Following exchanges with Scott Wissink, the idea is to move from a quintic to a quadratic to reduce the number of parameters. In addition, the perpendicular distance between the curve and a point in the plane is used to estimate the likelihood of a particle being a photon or pion. Distances above the curve are positive and those below are negative. The more positive the distance, the more likely the particle is a photon. The more negative the distance, the more likely the particle is a pion.
Hi Pibero, With your new "linear plus quintic" curve (!) ... how did you choose the coefficients for each term? Or even the form of the curve? I'm not being picky, but how to optimize such curves will be an important issue as we (hopefully soon) move on to quantitative comparisons of efficiency vs purity. As a teaser, please see attached  small loss of efficiency, larger gain in purity. Scott
Hi Pibero, I just worked out the distance of closest approach to a curve of the form y(x) = a + bx^2 and it involves solving a cubic equation  so maybe not so trivial after all. But if you want to pursue this (not sure it is your highest priority right now!), the cubic could be solved numerically and "alpha" could be easily calculated. More fun and games. Scott
Hi Pibero, I played around with the equations a bit more, and I worked out an analytic solution. But a numerical solution may still be better, since it allows more flexibility in the algebraic form of the 'boundary' line between photons and pions. Here's the basic idea: suppose the curved line that cuts between photons and pions can be expressed as y = f(x). If we are now given a point (x0,y0) in the plane, our goal is to find the shortest distance to this line. We can call this distance d (I think on your blackboard we called it alpha). To find the shortest distance, we need a straight line that passes through (x0,y0) and is also perpendicular to the curve f(x). Let's define the point where this straight line intersects the curve as (x1,y1). This means (comparing slopes) (y1  y0) / (x1  x0) = 1 / f'(x1) where f'(x1) is the derivative of f(x) evaluated at the point (x1,y1). Rearranging this, and using y1 = f(x1), yields the general result f(x1) f'(x1)  y0 f'(x1) + x1  x0 = 0 So, given f(x) and the point (x0,y0), the above is an equation in only x1. Solve for x1, use y1 = f(x1), and then the distance d of interest is given by d = sqrt[ (x1  x0)^2 + (y1  y0)^2 ] Example: suppose we got a reasonable separation of photons and pions using a curve of the form y = f(x) = a + bx^2 Using this in the above general equation yields the cubic equation (2b^2) x1^3 + (2ab + 1  2by0) x1  x0 = 0 Dividing through by 2b^2, we have an equation of the form x^3 + px + q = 0 This can actually be solved analytically  but as I mentioned, a numerical approach gives us more flexibility to try other forms for the curve, so this may be the way to go. I think (haven't proved rigorously) that for positive values of the constants a, b, x0, and y0, the cubic will yield three real solutions for x1, but only one will have x1 > 0, which is the solution of interest. Anyway, it has been an interesting intellectual exercise! Scott
I made use of the ROOT function TMath::RootsCubic to solve the cubic equation numerically for computing distances of each point to the curve. With the new quadratic curve f(x)=100+0.1*x^2 the efficiency is 63% and the rejection is 82%.
Efficiency and Rejection
The plot on the left below shows the efficiency of identifying photons over the pt range of 1030 GeV and the one on the right shows the rejection rate of single neutral pions. Both average about 75% over the pt range of interest.
Rejection vs. efficiency at different energies
The plot below shows background rejection vs. signal efficiency for different energy ranges of the thrown gamma/pi0.
Rejection vs. efficiency with preshower cut
Below on the left is a plot of the ratio of the sum of preshower 1 and 2 to tower energy for both photons (red) and pions (blue). On the right is the rejection of pions vs. efficiency of photons as I cut on the ratio of preshower to tower. It is clear from these plots that the preshower layer is not a good gamma/pi0 discriminator, although can be used to add marginal improvement to the separation preovided by the shower max.
ALL ENERGIES 

E=2040 GeV 

E=4060 GeV 

E=6080 GeV 

E=8090 GeV 

Pibero Djawotho Last updated Wed May 30 00:32:16 EDT 2007
»
 Printerfriendly version
 Login or register to post comments