Global Variables Results

Introduction

At this page you will find data on global variables including:

Centrality

• This figure shows correlations between total transverse energy ET (in EMC, FCAL and HAD calorimeters) and the number of collisions (Ncoll), number of participants (Npart) and impact parameter (b).
  • data source: run12 described at AOAtlasHIMC
  • Correl.pdf, Correl.C

• The same type of plot as above but now with higher statystics (6500 events) and for the total transverse energy CorrelETOT.pdf, CorrelETOT.C

• This figure shows relative RMS of the number of collisions (Ncoll), number of participants (Npart) and impact parameter for 20 centrality bins, each cantaining 5% of events, selected by cutting on distribution of ETOT in EMC (open squares), ETOT in FCAL (+) and ETOT in HADC (x). Full points represent "truth" relative RMS obtained by direct cut on Ncoll, Npart and b. RelCentCuts5p.pdf, RelCentCuts5p.C

Charged Particle Multiplicity (Si Hits)

• multiplicity reconstruction from pixel cluster for a single HIJING events, histogram: true dN/deta, points: reconstruction results obtained using pixel cluster from one pixel detector layer: layer 1 (black), layer 2 (blue), layer 3 (red).
  • plot for b=2.3 fm, multiplicity (left), correction factors (right):
    C, pdf C, pdf
  • plot for b=10.7 fm, C, pdf

Charged Particle Multiplicity (Tracklets)

• Distribution of dNch/deta from HIJING events (histogram) and reconstructed using the tracklet method event-byevent, but without efficiency corrections (points with error bars).

pdf
* (left) Tracklet reconstruction efficiency at |eta| < 1 for raw MC and reconstructed simulation data. (right) Resolution of the event-by-event charged particle multiplicity measurements.

pdf pdf

Transverse Energy

• This figure shows the total reconstructed transverse energy ETRec calculated by means of the [MissingET] package (Athena 12.0.3) vs the true ET also calculated by the same package.
  • data source: run12 described at AOAtlasHIMC
  • EtRecEtTrue.pdf, EtRecEtTrue.C

• This figure shows (left) the reconstructed pseudorapidity transverse energy distribution (red crosses, obtained with a "toy reconstruction" described here) compared to the true data shown by black histogram and correction factor (right) used to obtain the reconstructed distribution from cell transverse energies.
  • data source: one event from run5, described at AOAtlasHIMC

OneEventEtRec.pdf, OneEventEtRec.C c_factor.C

Flow

• Transverse momentum dependence of the resolution corrected reconstructed v2 with standard method (triangles), two-particle azimuthal correlations method (stars), compared to the generated v2(pT) (filled circles) for events with b = 2.3 fm (a) and b = 10.7 fm (b). For standard method the event plane is determined from the first layer of the forward calorimeter (FCAL0), while the elliptic flow signal is calculated for the azimuthal angles of the reconstructed tracks. For two-particle correlations method the elliptic flow is calculated for the reconstructed tracks as well.
  • data source: all events from run7, described at AOAtlasHIMC
  • Fig5_9v3.pdf, Fig5_9v3.C Fig5_9v3.pdf,

• Fig. 5.15 from PPR. Transverse momentum dependence of the reconstructed v2 from the event plane method (squares), two-particle correlations (stars) and the Lee-Yang Zeros method (triangles) for Pb+Pb collisions with (a) b = 2.3, (b) 7.0 and (c) 10.7 fm.
  Fig5_17.pdf,
  

• Distribution of the difference between the event plane angle and the true reaction plane, where the event plane angle is determined from the first barrel layer of the electromagnetic calorimeter - EMB1 (a), the first layer of the forward calorimeter - FCAL0 (b), the innermost layer of the pixel detector (c) and also calculated from the reconstructed tracks with pT > 0.5 Gev/c (d). For all distributions sample with constant flow 5% and b = 10-12 fm is used.
  • data source: all events from run7, described at AOAtlasHIMC
  • Fig5_7v1.pdf, Fig5_7v1.C

• The azimuthal angle distributions of the pixel clusters (innermost layer) measured with respect to event plane angle obtained from EMB1 (upper plots) and from FCAL0 (lower plots) for the simulated data with 3%, 5% and 10% (respectively from left side) constant input flow.
  • data source: all events from run9, run3, run8 described at AOAtlasHIMC
  • Fig5_8v1.pdf, Fig5_8v1.C

• The resolution correction and reconstructed elliptic flow parameters with different detector combination: table_PPR.pdf

• Pseudo-rapidity dependence of the reconstructed elliptic flow signal calculated from reconstructed tracks (left) and from pixel clusters and forward calorimetric cells (right) for a sample of peripheral events (b = 10 − 12 fm) with input flow of 5%. The reaction plane was estimated from signals in the first layer of forward calorimeters.

pdf pdf

• Correlation functions for samples with input flow of 5% and impact parameter range (a) b = 10 − 12 fm, (b) b = 6 − 8 fm and (c) b = 2 − 4 fm.

pdf

• |G^theta(ir)| versus r for peripheral samples (b = 10 − 12 fm) with the generated v2 of 3% (a), 5% (b) and 10% (c). In each plot the curves are calculated for different q values as indicated in the legend.

pdf

• The same as in the previous figure for samples with constant input flow of 5% and different centralities: b = 2 − 4 fm (a), b = 6 − 8 fm (b) and b = 10 − 12 fm (c).

pdf

---

Major updates:
-- AdamTrzupek - 14 Dec 2007

Responsible: AdamTrzupek
Last reviewed by: Never reviewed