Next: Spatial corrections
Up: report
Previous: The invariant mass resolution
Fig. 3 shows the energy distribution of the harder shower ()
vs. the softer shower () for the samples. Showers with
separation
are shown on the left, while
pairs with are plotted on the right of Fig. 3.
Green dots represent the pairs with masses inside the respective meson
window. Solid lines represent the case where . Fig. 3
shows that the statistics of pairs with is quite poor and
covers a restricted energy range. Consequently, we measured for
the set of () values shown as black dots in Fig. 3.
For each dot, the squared mass distribution ( sample) or the invariant
mass distribution ( data) has been created. Energy limits for a dot
have been chosen to be the
for each , where
is deduced from Eq. (4) with and
Gev
. These
distributions, shown in Figs. 4 - 7, are all fitted
with a Gaussian over a polynomial background. Fitting errors reflect the
statistics of the data sample. Systematic errors are governed by the
choice of background function, and they are estimated to be and
for the and data respectively. Reducing the energy bins to
did not have a significant impact on the results; it only
reduced statistics. From the Gaussian fit the value
has been
calculated.
In the first approximation, for the data we neglected the spatial
contribution to the mass resolution. Following Eq. (3) we formed
the set of equations
|
(9) |
where
labels calculated values. We try to solve these
equations for the set of values, with
numbering
the selected photon energies. The least-square solution we obtained is
model-independent since we have not presumed the functional form of .
It is free of any restrictions on the values except that
for . The corresponding
from the
free solution is plotted in Fig. 8. These points agree very well
with the standard expression for the energy resolution (Eq. 4),
with and GeV
.
Next: Spatial corrections
Up: report
Previous: The invariant mass resolution
Richard T. Jones
2003-10-04