Dijet Production in Polarized

Proton-Proton Collisions at
200 GeV
Matthew Walker

April 22, 2011

STAR
 Outline

✦ Brief theoretical motivation

✦ Experimental Overview
✦ Cross Section Analysis
✦ Asymmetry Analysis
✦ Conclusions

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 2

 d to ∆χ = 1. In order to account for unexpected
tuation.
ustomaryHowever for δu,
to consider they of
instead only
∆χ 2
= 1 between

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

erences between the available0.4 sets of fragmentation 2 2

spin is -0.02
only ~30%.
DSSV
-0.02

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

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 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

D. de Florian et al. PRL 101 (2008) 072001.

ALL systematics (x 10 -3)

Reconstruction + [-1,+3]
Trigger Bias (pT dep)
✦ Run 6 results: GRSV-MAX/ Non-longitudinal ~ 0.03

GRSV-MIN ruled out, a gluon Polarization (pT dep)

polarization between GRSV-std Relative

Luminosity
0.94

and GRSV-zero favored Backgrounds

1st bin ~ 0.5
else ~ 0.1

pT systematic ± 6.7%

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 5

 Correlation Measurements
✦ Reconstructing multiple physics
objects (di-jets, photon/jet)
provides information about
initial parton kinematics
✦ STAR well suited for correlation
measurements with its large
acceptance
1
x1 = √ (pT 3 eη3 + pT 4 eη4 )
s
1
x2 = √ (pT 3 e−η3 + pT 4 e−η4 )
s
√
M= x1 x2 s
x1
η3 + η4 = ln
x2 STAR Collaboration
PRL 100 (2008) 232003

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 6

 Experimental Setup

✦ RHIC produces
polarized proton
beams up to 250
GeV in energy
✦ Siberian snake
magnets in the
AGS and RHIC
help protect beam
from depolarized
resonances

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 7

 !=-1
STAR Detector
!=0

!=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

Parton Branching, Hadronization,

Underlying Event
parton

g
Partons

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 9

 Data
✦ 2005 Data: 2.27 pb-1 taken during RHIC Run 5
✦ 2009 Data: 10.3 pb-1 taken during RHIC Run 9

✦ Jet Patch Trigger:

✦ 1x1 in φxη patch
of towers in the
BEMC (400
towers)
✦ Midpoint Cone
Algorithm with Split-
Merge
✦ Cone Radius: 0.4, 0.7
✦ Seed 0.5 GeV Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT (2010)

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 10

 Cross Section Formula
dσi 1 1 1 1 !
misreco 1 trig
= reco,vert αij "j trig
Jj,reco
dMi ∆Mi L Avert "i j "j
dσi/dMi = differential cross section in bin i
ΔMi = bin width in invariant mass of bin i
L = Luminosity
Avert = vertex acceptance
ϵreco,vert = reconstruction + vertex efficiency
αij = matrix element for unfolding method (more later)
ϵmisreco = efficiency for reconstructing dijets that have an associated
particle dijet
ϵtrig = trigger efficiency
Jj = reconstructed yield in bin j

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 11

 2005 Data/Simulation Comparison
2005 STAR Preliminary
normalized

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

1.4 1.4 1.4

1.3

1.2
1.3

1.2
1.3

1.2
comparison
with more
data/

1.1 1.1 1.1

1 1 1
stable NLO
calculations
0.9 0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.5

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

√ η3 + η4 1 x1 ∗ η3 − η4
M= x1 x2 s η34 = = ln cos θ = tanh
2 2 x2 2

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 12

 Unfolding
• Used a matrix unfolding scheme based on G. D’Agostini,
NIM A 362 (1995), p. 487.
• Purpose of unfolding - undo “smearing” caused by
• Detector effects, e.g.:
• Double counting electrons
• Hadron response
• Lost tracks
• Energy Leakage
• Falling spectrum

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 13

 Uncertainties

Statistical - besides data statistics, account for effects from MC finite

statistics in correction factors and unfolding
Systematic -
Jet Energy Scale - more next slide
Beam Background - < 0.5% from varied neutral energy cut
Normalization
Luminosity - 8% from MB cross section uncertainty
Acceptance - 6% from difference in timebin distributions between MB
and BJP2

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 14

 Jet Energy Scale Uncertainty
Neutral Energy Uncertainty - 4.9 %
BEMC Scale Uncertainty - 4.8 %
PRL 97, 252001 (2006)
BEMC Efficiency Uncertainty - 1 %
Murad’s analysis note
Charged Energy Uncertainty - 5.6 %
Track Scale Uncertainty - 1%
Murad’s analysis note
Track Finding Efficiency Uncertainty - 5%
P. Djawotho presentation to Jet Group
Hadron Response of the BEMC - 2.3 %
PRC 70, 054907

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 15

 Jet Energy Scale Uncertainty
Trigger Unfolding
Reconstruction
Corrections Other Efficiencies

High; High High; High

High High; Nominal High; Nominal

BEMC Max
High; Low High; Low

Nominal; High Nominal; High

Data Nominal Nominal Nominal Yield

Nominal; Low Nominal; Low

Low; High Low; High

Low Low; Nominal Low; Nominal BEMC Min

Low; Low Low; Low

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 16

 2005 Cross Section
105

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

p+p → Jet + Jet + X at s = 200 GeV

1
Rcone = 0.4
0.2 < η < 0.8, |Δ η| < 0.5
|Δ φ| > 2.0
10-1
10% Normalization Uncertainty (not shown)
(data-theory)/theory

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)

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 17

 2005/2006 Comparison
105

(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

320 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Invariant Mass (GeV)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 18

 Cone Radius Dependence

Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT 2010

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 19

 2006 Cross Section
Dijet Cross Section
105
pp @ 200 GeV ✦ Unpolarized differential cross
Cone Radius = 0.7
max(pT) > 10 GeV, min(pT) > 7 GeV section between 24 and 100
104 -0.8 < ! < 0.8, |!!| < 1.0 (GeV/c2)
|!!| > 2.0

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)

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 20

 2006 Cross Section
Systematic Uncertainty
Theoretical Uncertainty
1.0

!
Ldt = 5.39 pb !1 STAR Preliminary
!
0.5
(Data - Theory) / Theory

✦ Comparison to theory
(including hadronization
0.0

and underlying event

correction) shows good
agreement within
-0.5

Data-theory Comparison STAR Run-6

of Dijet Cross Section systematic uncertainties
pp @ 200 GeV Theory:
CTEQ6M
-1.0

Cone Radius = 0.7

max(pT) > 10 GeV, min(pT) > 7 GeV NLO pQCD
Had. UE. Corrections
-0.8 < ! < 0.8, |!!| < 1.0, |!!| > 2.0

30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mjj [GeV]
Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT (2010)

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 21

 2009 Simulation
✦ Different detector, different trigger, updated geometry
✦ 9 STAR MC productions with partonic pT > 2 GeV
✦ PYTHIA 6.4.23, proPt0 (PYTUNE 329)
✦ Virtual Machine prepared with STAR software stack and deployed to over 1000 machines
✦ Run using cloud computing resources at Clemson University in South Carolina (Ranked
#85 best supercomputer)
✦ Over 12 billion events

N Machines
generated by PYTHIA, filtered 1400

to allow only 36 million to 1200

Available Machines

undergo detector simulation Working Machines

(GEANT3), and 10 million 1000 Idle Machines

through full reconstruction 800

✦ Took over 400,000 CPU hours 600

and generated 7 TB of files
400
transferred to BNL
200
✦ Largest physics simulation on
cloud, largest STAR simulation 0
Jul17 Jul24 Jul31
Date

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 22

 Data/Simulation Run 9
STAR Run 9 Data Preliminary

Normalized Yields
6
10 p+p → Jet + Jet + X
Data s = 200 GeV

10
5 Simulation 10
5

5
10

104 R cone = 0.7

✦ Run 9 data -0.8 < η < 0.8

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

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6 -0.6
STAR Preliminary
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8
-1 -1 -1
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
2 η cos(θ*)
Invariant Mass (GeV/c ) 34

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 23

 2009 Asymmetry
! !
k αjk ( i PB,i PY,i (N5,i,k + N10,i,k ) − PB,i PY,i Ri (N6,i,k + N9,i,k ))
ALL,j =! ! 2 2 2 2
k α jk ( P P
i B,i Y,i (N 5,i,k + N 10,i,k ) + P B,i,j Y,i,j Ri (N6,i,k + N9,i,k ))
P

✦ The value of ALL in a bin j is given by the above formula

✦ αjk are the matrix elements for the unfolding
✦ Changing the jet energy scale results in different unfolding
matrices
✦ The calculation is repeated for the different matrices to get the
uncertainty on ALL due to the jet energy scale

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 24

 Uncertainties

✦ Statistical - Uncertainties from all sources of statistical

combined using a Monte Carlo that samples the distributions:
data, simulation, polarization, relative luminosity
✦ Systematic
✦ Jet energy scale: change unfolding matrices
✦ Non-longitudinal effects: 0.025 x ALL
✦ Relative Luminosity: δR = 1x10-3
✦ Theory Scenario dependent trigger efficiencies

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 25

 False Asymmetries
Raw A LL AYellow l2j_full_nom_ayb ABlue l2j_full_nom_abb
l2j_full_nom_all
2
χ / ndf 4.061 / 5 χ 2 / ndf 4.677 / 5

p0 0.0003477 ± 0.0011904 p0 0.001415 ± 0.001175

0.1 0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05

0 0 0

-0.05 -0.05 -0.05

-0.1 -0.1 -0.1

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 l2j_full_nom_als A Unlike-sign l2j_full_nom_aus

2
χ / ndf 7.164 / 5 χ 2 / ndf 2.119 / 5

p0 0.002957 ± 0.002827 p0 0.001938 ± 0.002855

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

Consistent
with zero
0 0

-0.05 -0.05

-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 )

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 26

 Scenario Dependent Efficiencies
0.04
A LL,pol - ALL,unpol

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)

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 27

 Run 9 Asymmetry
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

0.04 0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02 0.02

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

M [GeV/c2] M [GeV/c 2] M [GeV/c2]

East West East West

η=-1 η=0 η=1 η=-1 η=0 η=1

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 28

 Kinematic Sensitivity
East Barrel - East Barrel East Barrel - West Barrel
5 5
10 10

4 4
10 10

3 3
10 10

2 2
10 10

10 10 x1: 20.0 < M < 30.0

x2: 20.0 < M < 30.0

1 1
x1: 70.0 < M < 80.0
-1 -1
10 10
x2: 70.0 < M < 80.0
-2 -2
10 -2 -1
10 -2 -1
10 10 1 10 10 1

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 )

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 29

 Summary
✦ Correlations measurements provide constraints on parton
kinematics, which helps constrain the shape of Δg(x)
✦ 2006 Dijet cross section (5.39 pb-1) shows good agreement with
NLO calculations
✦ First Dijet double-spin asymmetry (FOM = 0.59 pb-1) from
2006 data suggests preference away from GRSV-std scenario
✦ 2009 Dijet asymmetry analysis underway with FOM = 1.21
pb-1 analyzed to date, and more to come, allows for the first
separation into multiple pseudorapidity acceptances
✦ 2009 asymmetry strongly favors DSSV over GRSV std and
GS-C

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 30

 Backup

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 31

 UNFOLDING
Contributions to corrected bin 48.83 < Mparticle < 64.15

Consider the true bin with

Unfolded Yield
160
49 < M < 64 140

The spectrum at right 120

represents the contributions 100

80
to this true bin from each of 60

the reconstructed mass bins 40

The red bin is the 20

0
contribution from the same 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2)

bin in reconstructed mass

The contributions from blue There are important off
bins is ~50% diagonal components that
must be considered

7 October 2009 Collaboration Meeting 32

 UNFOLDING
Contributions to corrected bin 20.00 < Mparticle < 24.25 Contributions to corrected bin 24.25 < Mparticle < 30.01 Contributions to corrected bin 30.01 < Mparticle < 37.90

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

Here are the same plots for all of the

Unfolded Yield
0.6

bins 0.5

0.4

The last bin has contributions from 0.3

0.2

ONLY other bins 0.1

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
7 October 2009 Collaboration Meeting Reconstructed Invariant Mass (GeV/c2) 33
 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)

7 October 2009 Collaboration Meeting 34

 2006 Asymmetry
Dijet ALL Data Run-6
0.08 pp @ 200 GeV
Sys. Uncertainty
Cone Radius = 0.7
max(pT) > 10 GeV
✦ Run 6 Longitudinal double 0.06 min(pT) > 7 GeV
STAR Preliminary

helicity asymmetry -0.8 < ! < 0.8, |!!| < 1.0

|!!| > 2.0
0.04
✦ Systematic uncertainties

ALL
show effects on trigger 0.02
efficiency from different
theory scenarios 0.00

✦ Scale uncertainty (8.3%) -0.02

GRSV STD
DSSV

from polarization GRSV !g = 0 !

Ldt = 5.39pb !1
GRSV !g = ! g !
uncertainty not shown
30 40 50 60 70 80
Mjj [GeV]

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 35

 2009 Projections
east barrel - east barrel and west barrel - west barrel east barrel - west barrel
A LL 0.06 0.06

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

Wed Sep 22 15:18:55 2010 M [GeV/c2] M [GeV/c2]

East West East West

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 36

 Data/Simulation Run 6
✦ 2006 Simulation:
✦ 11 STAR MC productions
producing 4M events with
partonic pT between 3 GeV
and 65 GeV
✦ PYTHIA 6.410, CDF Tune A
✦ Run 6 data and simulation
agreement is good

Tai Sakuma, Thesis, MIT (2010)

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 37

 Dijet Run 9 Projected

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 38

 2006 Asymmetry
++ +−
1 N − RN
ALL = ++ +−
PB PY N + RN

✦ Asymmetry formula:
✦ N++: like sign yields
✦ N+-: unlike sign yields
✦ R: relative luminosity
✦ P: polarization

STAR Matthew Walker April 22, 2011 Thesis Defense 39