EG1 Teleconferences DeltaDoverD - Revision history

Oborn: /* Electron Efficiency Ratio */

2010-07-21T05:50:01Z

Electron Efficiency Ratio

Oborn: /* 21-07-2010 */

2010-07-21T05:44:50Z

21-07-2010

Oborn: /* 21-07-2010 */

2010-07-21T05:29:01Z

21-07-2010

Oborn: /* 27-05-2009 */

2010-07-21T05:28:04Z

27-05-2009

Oborn: /* 2/26/09 */

2009-08-13T19:39:03Z

2/26/09

Oborn: /* Number of photoelectrons and EC_tot/P vs nphe for Pions and Electrons when e_momentum < 3 GeV */

2009-06-11T21:56:09Z

Number of photoelectrons and EC_tot/P vs nphe for Pions and Electrons when e_momentum < 3 GeV

Oborn: /* Number of photoelectrons and EC_tot/P vs nphe for Pions and Electrons when e_momentum < 3 GeV */

2009-06-11T21:53:42Z

Number of photoelectrons and EC_tot/P vs nphe for Pions and Electrons when e_momentum < 3 GeV

Oborn: /* Electron-pion contamination */

2009-05-27T20:10:36Z

Electron-pion contamination

Oborn: /* 2/26/09 */

2009-02-13T19:47:47Z

2/26/09

Oborn: /* 2/12/09 */

2009-02-13T17:25:05Z

2/12/09

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:50, 21 July 2010
Line 330:		Line 330:

	[[Media:electronefficiencyratioBp7Bn11.txt]]		[[Media:electronefficiencyratioBp7Bn11.txt]]
		+
		+
		+	In this case we required positive pion and electron and applied cut on <math>Q^2</math>(<math>1.05<Q^2<1.15</math>)
		+
		+	{\|border="5"
		+	!X_bj \|\|B_n/B_p Rates
		+	\|-
		+	\| 0.14 \|\| 0.25 <math>\pm</math> 0.55
		+	\|-
		+	\| 0.15 \|\| 0.74 <math>\pm</math> 0.27
		+	\|-
		+	\| 0.17 \|\| 1.07 <math>\pm</math> 0.18
		+	\|-
		+	\| 0.19 \|\| 1.3 <math>\pm</math> 0.13
		+	\|-
		+	\| 0.2 \|\| 1.4 <math>\pm</math> 0.14
		+	\|}
		+


	[http://wiki.iac.isu.edu/index.php/EG1 Go Back] [[EG1]]		[http://wiki.iac.isu.edu/index.php/EG1 Go Back] [[EG1]]

@@ Line 282: / Line 282: @@
 =21-07-2010=
-;Cuts
+==Cuts==
 The correct identification of an electron and a pion is the main requirement for a semi-inclusive analysis. unfortunately, the pion is able to generate cerenkov radiation an as a result be misidentified as an electron.  This contamination of the electron sample is removed using the cuts on the energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter, the number of photoelectrons in the Cherenkov counter and fiducial cuts on the detector acceptance.
@@ Line 295: / Line 295: @@
 |}
 Because of wide range of kinematics, <math>{\varphi_{\pi}}^*</math> was measured only for certain lepton scattering <math>\theta_e</math> angles and invariant mass (W). Applying above described cuts: EC_inner>0.06, EC_tot/p>0.2, nphe>2.5 and <math>0.9<M_x<1.1</math>, for the following invariant mass <math>1.44<W<1.46</math> and <math>0.4<cos\theta_{pion}^{CM}<0.6</math> the <math>{\varphi_{\pi}}^*</math> vs relative rate distribution is shown below on the graph and compared with E99-107 data, which by itself is in agreement with the models.<br>
@@ Line 310: / Line 311: @@
 [[Phi_angle_in_CM_frame_for_different_runs]]
 [http://wiki.iac.isu.edu/index.php/EG1 Go Back] [[EG1]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:29, 21 July 2010
Line 306:		Line 306:


−	If you follow the link below, you can find the comparison for the wide range of kinematics.	+	'''If you follow the link below, you can find the comparison for the wide range of kinematics:'''

	[[Phi_angle_in_CM_frame_for_different_runs]]		[[Phi_angle_in_CM_frame_for_different_runs]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:28, 21 July 2010
Line 280:		Line 280:


−	=27-05-~~2009~~=	+	=21-07-2010=

−	~~Results~~ using ~~OSICuts~~:	+	;Cuts
		+
		+	The correct identification of an electron and a pion is the main requirement for a semi-inclusive analysis. unfortunately, the pion is able to generate cerenkov radiation an as a result be misidentified as an electron. This contamination of the electron sample is removed using the cuts on the energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter, the number of photoelectrons in the Cherenkov counter and fiducial cuts on the detector acceptance.
		+	The energy deposition in the calorimeter for electrons and pions is different. Pions are minimum ionizing charge particles depositing into the calorimeter which is independent of the pion's momentum once the momentum is above ~ 0.08 GeV. On the other hand, electrons produce photoelectrons and create electromagnetic shower releasing the energy into the calorimeter which is proportional to their momentum. In order to remove contamination due to the energy deposition in the calorimeter the following cut was introduced: <math>EC_{total}>0.2p</math>. The cut was also applied to the energy collected in the inner part of the calorimeter: <math>EC_{inner}>0.06p</math> , because the ratio of the energy deposited in the total to the inner calorimeter depends on the thickness of the detector and is a constant.<br>
		+	[[Image:e_total_vs_e_inner1_before_cuts_file_dst27070.gif\|200px]][[Image:e_total_vs_e_inner1_after_cuts_file_dst27070.gif\|200px]]<br>
		+	In addition to the cut on the energy deposited into the electromagnetic calorimeter, the misidentified electrons were excluded requiring a signal in the threshold CLAS Cherenkov detector. Pion's misidentified as electrons have been shown to produce around ~1.5 photoelectons in the cherenkov detector, as shown below. Geometrical cuts on the location of the particle at the entrance to the cerenkov detector were applied to reduce the pion contamination. The second histogram below shows that after cuts the peak around 1.5 is substantially reduced. <br>
		+	{\| border="1" \|cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0
		+	\|-
		+	\| No cuts \|\| OSI Cuts
		+	\|-
		+	\| [[Image:electrons_nphe_without_cuts_all_data_with_fits.gif\|200px\|thumb\|The number of photoelectrons without cuts]] \|\| [[Image:electrons_nphe_with_OSIcuts_all_data_with_fits.gif\|200px\|thumb\|The number of photoelectrons with OSI cuts]]
		+	\|}
		+
		+
		+	Because of wide range of kinematics, <math>{\varphi_{\pi}}^</math> was measured only for certain lepton scattering <math>\theta_e</math> angles and invariant mass (W). Applying above described cuts: EC_inner>0.06, EC_tot/p>0.2, nphe>2.5 and <math>0.9<M_x<1.1</math>, for the following invariant mass <math>1.44<W<1.46</math> and <math>0.4<cos\theta_{pion}^{CM}<0.6</math> the <math>{\varphi_{\pi}}^</math> vs relative rate distribution is shown below on the graph and compared with E99-107 data, which by itself is in agreement with the models.<br>
		+	{\| border="0" style="background:transparent;" align="center"
		+	\|-
		+	\|
		+	[[Image:phi_angle_in_CM_Frame_vs_Relative_Rate_cos_theta_0-4_0-6_W_1-45.jpg\|400px\|thumb\|<math>{\varphi_{\pi}}^*</math> vs Relative rate for fixed <math>cos\theta_{pion}^{CM}=0.5</math> and <math>W=1.45 GeV</math> <ref name="Park2008" > Bogus text</ref> <ref> http://clasweb.jlab.org/cgi-bin/clasdb/msm.cgi?eid=14&mid=16&data=on </ref> ]]
		+	\|}<br>
		+
		+	The EG1b data for kinematics chosen above show the same shape as E99-107 data.
		+
		+
		+	If you follow the link below, you can find the comparison for the wide range of kinematics.
		+
		+	[[Phi_angle_in_CM_frame_for_different_runs]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:39, 13 August 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=2/26/09=		=2/26/09=

−	~~Insert link to Osipenko cuts, are they the same as Nevzats.~~

	[http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/nevzat/UPGRADE_DST/cuts/OSICuts.h OSICuts]		[http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/nevzat/UPGRADE_DST/cuts/OSICuts.h OSICuts]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 Electrons in the sample(using all cuts except nphe>2.5) =<br>
 <math> = \frac {Integral(gauss(0))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =</math><br>
-<math> = \frac{6.104 \times 10^9}{ 6.104 \times 10^9 + 2.925 \times 10^9 + 1.241 \times 10^9} = </math> <br>
+<math> = \frac{6.104 \times 10^9 + 2.925 \times 10^9}{ 6.104 \times 10^9 + 2.925 \times 10^9 + 1.241 \times 10^9} = </math> <br>
-<math> = 60 % </math><br>
+<math> = 87 % </math><br>
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 Electrons in the sample(including nphe>2.5 cut) =<br>
 <math> = \frac {Integral(gauss(0))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =</math><br>
-<math> = \frac{5.367 \times 10^9}{ 5.367 \times 10^9 + 2.434 \times 10^9 + 4.928 \times 10^6} = </math> <br>
+<math> = \frac{5.367 \times 10^9 + 2.434 \times 10^9}{ 5.367 \times 10^9 + 2.434 \times 10^9 + 4.928 \times 10^6} = </math> <br>
 <math> = 99.9 % </math><br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 27 May 2009
Line 280:		Line 280:
	\|}<br>		\|}<br>

		+
		+	=27-05-2009=
		+
		+	Results using OSICuts:

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 13 February 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Insert link to Osipenko cuts, are they the same as Nevzats.		Insert link to Osipenko cuts, are they the same as Nevzats.
		+
		+	[http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/nevzat/UPGRADE_DST/cuts/OSICuts.h OSICuts]

	=2/12/09=		=2/12/09=

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =2/12/09=
@@ Line 157: / Line 161: @@
 Repeat the above calculation using Nevzat's cuts.
 http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/nevzat/GEOM_CC_CUTS/
 =1/29/09=