DeltaDoverD Progress

9/5/08

SIDIS Analysis

a.) Cross-Section comparison

i.) Calculate absolute cross section for [math]\cos(\theta_{pi})[/math] = 0.5, 1 < Q^2 < 4 GeV^2 , W = 1.45 +/- 0.2 GeV

[math]{\sigma} = \frac{1}{ L_{int}}dN = \frac{35}{3.3 \times 10^{34}} \times cm^2 = 10.61 \times10^{-34} \times 10^{24} \times [barn] = 1.061 \times 10^{-3} [\mu barn][/math]

Luminosity Calculation

ii.) Plot [math]\phi_{diff}^{CM}[/math]-vs-[math]cos{\theta}_{\pi}^{LAB}[/math] when [math]cos{\theta}_{e}^{CM}[/math] = -0.3 also plot [math]\phi_{diff}^{CM}[/math]-vs- [math]cos{\theta}_{e}^{LAB}[/math]

As one can see from histograms of the pion_theta_angle_vs_phi_angle_in_CM_Frame and the electron_theta_angle_vs_phi_angle_in_CM_Frame, the pion and electron acceptance in the region of [math]\phi_{diff}^{CM}=180[/math] is nearly zero(significantly low).

electron sector	pion_theta_angle_vs_phi_angle_in_CM_Frame_after_cuts(EC_inner>0.06, EC_tot/p>0.2, nphe>2.5, [math]0.9\lt M_x\lt 1.1[/math], [math]1.1\lt W\lt 1.5[/math] )	electron_theta_angle_vs_phi_angle_in_CM_Frame_after_cuts(EC_inner>0.06, EC_tot/p>0.2, nphe>2.5, [math]0.9\lt M_x\lt 1.1[/math], [math]1.1\lt W\lt 1.5[/math] )
1
2
3
4
5
6

[math]Q^2[/math]_vs_[math]\phi_{diff}^{CM}[/math] plot shows that the [math]Q^2[/math] cut should not make much difference on [math]\phi_{diff}^{CM}[/math] plot. The cut around [math]1 GeV^2 \lt Q^2\lt 2 GeV^2[/math] should reduce the number of pions around 0 and 360 of phi angle.

9/19/08

SIDIS Analysis

a.) Cross-Section comparison

i.) Calculate absolute cross section for [math]\cos(\theta_{pi})[/math] = 0.5, 1 < Q^2 < 4 GeV^2 , W = 1.45 +/- 0.2 GeV

[math]\frac{d \sigma}{d \Omega^*_{\pi}} = \frac{1.061 \times 10^{-3} [\mu barn]}{0.88} = 0.0012 \ne 2.4[/math]?

Documentation

The five-fold differential cross section for single pion production is equal to the following:

[math]\frac{\partial^5 \sigma}{\partial E_f \partial \Omega_e \partial {\Omega_{\pi}}^*} = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \Sigma \frac{1}{L_{int} A_{cc} \epsilon_{CC} \Delta W \Delta Q^2 \Delta cos {\theta_{\pi}}^* {\phi_{\pi}}^*} \frac{d(W, Q^2)}{d(E_f, cos \theta_e)}[/math]

The Jacobian term can be given as:

[math]\frac{d(W, Q^2)}{d(E_f, cos \theta_e)} = \frac{2 M_p E_i E_f}{W}[/math]

[math]\frac{\partial^5 \sigma}{\partial E_f \partial \Omega_e \partial {\Omega_{\pi}}^*} = \Gamma_{v}\times \frac{d^2 \sigma}{d {\Omega_{\pi}}^*}[/math]

where [math]\Gamma_{v}[/math] is the virtual photon flux and can be written as

[math]\Gamma_{v} = \frac{\alpha}{2 \pi^2 Q^2} \frac{(W^2 - {M_p}^2)E_f}{2M_p E_e} \frac{1}{1-\epsilon}[/math]

[math]\epsilon = (1 + 2(1+\frac{{\nu}^2}{Q^2})tan^2 \frac{\theta_e}{2})^{-1}[/math]

The reason of having low cross section might be binning

In paper they use the following number of bins:

Variable	Num. Bin	Range	Bin Size
W	27	1.15 - 1.7 GeV	20 MeV
[math]Q^2[/math]	7	1.1 - 5.0 [math]GeV^2[/math]	variable
[math]cos {\theta_{\pi}}^*[/math]	10	-1.0 - 1.0	0.2
[math]{\phi_{\pi}}^*[/math]	24	-180. - 180	15

Number of bins in my case were 360.

Number of bins equal is ~24

When i applied [math]1.6\lt Q^2\lt 1.84[/math] cut, the number of entries were reduced to 152.

In paper they use liquid-hydrogen unpolarized target(we have NH3 and ND3 polarized). The polarized electron beam current is 8 nA(in our case it is about 6 nA). and luminosity is different too. It also depends on statistics.

ii.) What is smallest angular coverage of EC (8 degrees?) Determine phi region where there is no acceptance ( where should we stop plotting data)?

iii.) Asymmetry Calculation

a.) Beam Asymmetry Plot

In order to plot Beam Asymmetry we need to plot for the first time the histogram of the invariant_mass_vs_cross_section. Then determine the structure function fitting the cross section and calculating the beam asymmetry function which is given as :

[math]A_{TL^'} = \sqrt{2\epsilon (1 - \epsilon)} \sigma_{LT^'} \times sin{\phi_{\pi}}^*[/math]

for given cos(theta) of the pion in cm, Q^2 and W invariant mass.

Choose kinematics ( a single theta and phi point )to max our stats and comparison to paper Histogram the following

1. Number of e-pi coincidence events, number of FC counts
2. Number of e-pi coincidence events/FC counts
3. Number of e-pi coincidence events/FC count/Pt

for groups of runs with h_e,P_t = ++, +-, -+, --

table with 4 columns of h_e, P_t and 3 rows of the above histograms

9/26/08

SIDIS Analysis

1.) make semi-inclusive spectrum:

a.) h>0 Pt>0 b.) h > 0 pt<0 c.)h<0 pt>0 d.)h<0 pt<0

2.) ad up opposite target polarization histograms

3.) subtract h> 0 and h<0

helflag = 1 =>

helflag = 2 =>

helflag = 3 =>

helflag = 4 =>

Phi_angle_CM vs Asymmetry

Compared data(there is no table for asymmetry values like cross section):

11/21/08

0.) insert run summarry table, Pb, Pt, PB*Pt, Btorus

1.) make semi-inclusive spectrum:

a.) h>0 Pt>0

b.) h > 0 pt<0

c.)h<0 pt>0

d.)h<0 pt<0

2.) helicity difference plots for Pt>0 and Pt<0

3.) Asym plots for Pt>0 and Pt< 0

4.) unpolarized target asymmetry

Rebin asymmetry hisograms and combine the two into a total asymmetry histogram

Run Summary Table

The table below should have run ranges with 
[math]P_b*P_t \pm \Delta (P_b *P_t)[/math] according 
to the elastic asymmetry measurements stored at
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/eg1b_analysis_progress.htm.

http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/josh/pbpt/

5.73 in
pos = 0.45743 +/- 0.04269
neg = -0.38816 +/- 0.04556

5.73 out
pos = 0.46604 +/- 0.03496
neg = -0.50684 +/- 0.03578

Start Run Number	Beam Polarization(Pb)	Target Polarization(Pt) from dstdump file	Pb*Pt	Beam Torus	Beam Energy (MeV)
26998	0	-0.69	0.46604	-2250	5736
26996	-0.71	-0.69	0.46604	-2250	5736
26995	-0.71	-0.69	0.46604	-2250	5736
26994	-0.71	-0.73	0.46604	-2250	5736
26993	-0.71	-0.72	0.46604	-2250	5736
26992	-0.71	-0.73	0.46604	-2250	5736
26991	-0.71	-0.75	0.46604	-2250	5736
26990	-0.71	-0.76	0.46604	-2250	5736
26989	0.71	-0.67	-0.38816	2250	5736
26988	0.71	-0.68	-0.38816	2250	5736
26987	0.71	-0.67	-0.38816	2250	5736
26986	0.71	-0.68	-0.38816	2250	5736
26985	0.71	-0.68	-0.38816	2250	5736
26984	0.71	-0.68	-0.38816	2250	5736
26983	0.71	-0.68	-0.38816	2250	5736
26981	0.71	-0.68	-0.38816	2250	5736
26980	0.71	-0.7	-0.38816	2250	5736
26979	0.71	-0.71	-0.38816	2250	5736
26966	0.71	0.74	0.45743	2250	5736
26965	0.71	0.74	0.45743	2250	5736
26964	0.71	0.74	0.45743	2250	5736
26963	0.71	0.74	0.45743	2250	5736
26962	0.71	0.74	0.45743	2250	5736
26961	0.71	0.75	0.45743	2250	5736
26960	0.71	0.76	0.45743	2250	5736
26959	0.71	0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
26958	0.71	0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
26957	0.71	0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
26956	0.71	0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
26955	0.71	0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
26954	0.71	0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
26953	0.71	0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
26952	0.71	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26951	0.71	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26948	0.71	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26947	0.71	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26946	0.71	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26945	0.71	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26943	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26942	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26941	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26940	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26939	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26938	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26937	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26934	0.7	0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
26933	0.7	0.71	0.45743	2250	5736
26932	0.7	0.71	0.45743	2250	5736
26931	0.7	0.71	0.45743	2250	5736
26930	0.7	0.71	0.45743	2250	5736
26929	0.7	0.71	0.45743	2250	5736
26928	0.7	0.72	0.45743	2250	5736
26927	0.7	0.72	0.45743	2250	5736
26926	0.7	0.73	0.45743	2250	5736
26925	0.7	0.73	0.45743	2250	5736
27074	0.71	-0.81	-0.38816	2250	5736
27075	0.71	-0.77	-0.38816	2250	5736
27076	0.71	-0.74	-0.38816	2250	5736
27077	0.71	-0.74	-0.38816	2250	5736
27078	071	-0.75	-0.38816	2250	5736
27079	0.71	-0.72	-0.38816	2250	5736
27100	0.71	0.76	0.45743	2250	5736
27101	0.71	0.76	0.45743	2250	5736
27102	0.71	0.73	0.45743	2250	5736
27105	0.61	0.73	0.45743	2250	5736
27106	0.61	0.73	0.45743	2250	5736
27107	0.61	-0.71	-0.38816	2250	5736
27108	0.61	-0.7	-0.38816	2250	5736
27109	0.61	-0.7	-0.38816	2250	5736
27111	0.61	-0.71	-0.38816	2250	5736
27112	0.61	-0.69	-0.38816	2250	5736
27114	0.61	0		2250	5736
27116	-0.58	0.2	-0.38816	2250	5736
27124	-0.7	0.24	-0.38816	2250	5736
27125	-0.7	0.25	-0.38816	2250	5736
27126	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27127	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27128	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27129	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27131	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27132	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27133	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27134	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27135	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27136	-0.7	0.26	-0.38816	2250	5736
27137	-0.7	0.25	-0.38816	2250	5736
27138	-0.7	0.25	-0.38816	2250	5736
27139	-0.7	0.25	-0.38816	2250	5736
27141	-0.7	0.25	-0.38816	2250	5736
27142	-0.7	0.25	-0.38816	2250	5736
27143	-0.7	0.25	-0.38816	2250	5736
27145	-0.7	0.24	-0.38816	2250	5736
27146	-0.7	0.24	-0.38816	2250	5736
27148	-0.7	0.24	-0.38816	2250	5736
27149	-0.7	-0.09	0.45743	2250	5736
27150	-0.7	-0.12	0.45743	2250	5736
27152	-0.64	-0.18	0.45743	2250	5736
27153	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27154	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27155	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27156	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27157	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27160	-0.64	-0.18	0.45743	2250	5736
27161	-0.64	-0.18	0.45743	2250	5736
27162	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27163	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27165	-0.64	-0.19	0.45743	2250	5736
27166	-0.64	0.18	-0.38816	2250	5736
27167	-0.64	0.22	-0.38816	2250	5736
27168	-0.64	0.23	-0.38816	2250	5736
27169	-0.64	0.23	-0.38816	2250	5736
27170	-0.64	0.23	-0.38816	2250	5736
27171	-0.64	0.23	-0.38816	2250	5736
27172	-0.64	-0.35	0.45743	2250	5736
27175	-0.7	-0.78	0.45743	2250	5736
27176	-0.7	-0.72	0.45743	2250	5736
27177	-0.7	-0.7	0.45743	2250	5736
27178	-0.7	-0.69	0.45743	2250	5736
27179	-0.7	-0.67	0.45743	2250	5736
27180	-0.7	-0.67	0.45743	2250	5736
27181	-0.7	-0.66	0.45743	2250	5736
27182	-0.7	-0.72	0.45743	2250	5736
27183	-0.7	-0.68	0.45743	2250	5736
27184	-0.7	-0.63	0.45743	2250	5736
27186	-0.7	0.72	-0.38816	2250	5736
27187	-0.7	0.71	-0.38816	2250	5736
27188	-0.7	0.71	-0.38816	2250	5736
27189	-0.7	0.7	-0.38816	2250	5736
27190	-0.7	0.69	-0.38816	2250	5736
27191	-0.7	0.69	-0.38816	2250	5736
27192	-0.7	0.68	-0.38816	2250	5736
27193	-0.7	0.69	-0.38816	2250	5736
27194	-0.7	0.7	-0.38816	2250	5736
27195	-0.7	0.69	-0.38816	2250	5736
27113	0.61	0.68	0.45743	2250	5736

Phi_Angle_CM_Frame for Positive and Negative Target Polarization

Helcode #	Negative Target Polarization	Positive Target Polarization
1 h>0
2 h<0
3
4

Helicity Difference Plots for Pt>0 and Pt<0

Helicity Difference	Negative Target Polarization	Positive Target Polarization
h1-h4
h3-h2

5-01-2009

Target and Beam Polarization are positive

Helcode #	Negative Beam Torus	Positive Beam Torus
1 h>0
2 h<0
3
4

Target Polarization Positive and Beam Polarization Negative

Helcode #	Negative Beam Torus	Positive Beam Torus
1 h>0	No Data
2 h<0	No Data
3	No Data
4	No Data

Inclusive Histograms For Invariant Mass

Invariant Mass Histograms for Each Sector

All helicities

Helcode=1

3/20/09

1.) plot Wdiff

2.) plot PE using Osipenko/Josh cuts

06/6/09

Invariant Mass

Difference of Invariant Mass for two differnet cuts:

Run Number	EC Cuts+ requiring pion	OSI Cuts	EC Cuts
26991

On x-axis of FC difference between the "+" heliciy FC  and the "-" helicity FC.

Run Number	W difference	FC difference	End of Run sum [math]\equiv \frac {\sum_i(FC(i)^+) - \sum(FC(i)^-)}{\sum (FC(i)^+) + \sum(FC(i)^-)})[/math]
26991		150px	0.00354260538 [math]\pm[/math] 0.00001050400
26994			0.00367 [math]\pm[/math] 0.00001088263
26993			0.002559223 [math]\pm[/math] 0.00001120796
26992			0.003781[math]\pm[/math]0.00001090044
26990			0.00331986321[math]\pm[/math]0.00001203387
26989			0.00303841557[math]\pm[/math]0.00001267152
26988			0.00380169243[math]\pm[/math]0.00001097470
26987			0.00280163240[math]\pm[/math]0.00001515270
26986			0.00352882616[math]\pm[/math]0.00000048897
26979			-0.00373104126[math]\pm[/math]0.00001531706
26965			0.00454140439[math]\pm[/math]0.00001534923
26964			0.00509434283[math]\pm[/math]0.00001557226
26963			0.00405285155[math]\pm[/math]0.00001575049
26961			0.00507456102 [math]\pm[/math]0.00001682744
26959			0.00523761694[math]\pm[/math]0.00001488890
26958			0.00444205478[math]\pm[/math] 0.00001577510
26956			0.00504401620[math]\pm[/math]0.00001565456
26955			0.00559913829[math]\pm[/math]0.00001425736
26954			0.00494690728[math]\pm[/math]0.00001443107
26953			0.00562598448[math]\pm[/math]0.00001525797
26952			0.00485295834[math]\pm[/math]0.00001293033
26951			0.00545485906[math]\pm[/math]0.00001558637
26947			0.00465697160[math]\pm[/math]0.00001144285
26945			-0.00556456389[math]\pm[/math] 0.00001389870
26943			-0.00656109472[math]\pm[/math]0.00001540342
26942			-0.00669169106[math]\pm[/math]0.00001526771
26941			-0.00676460417[math]\pm[/math]0.00001100372
26940			-0.00643597022 [math]\pm[/math]0.00001397207
26939			-0.00650047456[math]\pm[/math]0.00001405001
26938			-0.00632630313[math]\pm[/math]0.00001411839
26937			-0.00533169794[math]\pm[/math]0.00001417768
26934			-0.00601497156[math]\pm[/math]0.00001422560
26933			-0.00586540500[math]\pm[/math]0.00001414938
26932			-0.00587687192[math]\pm[/math]0.00001383218
26931			-0.00630232566[math]\pm[/math]0.00001495053
26930			-0.00684205010[math]\pm[/math]0.00001541629
26929			-0.00521666944[math]\pm[/math]0.00001555256
26928			-0.00682185316[math]\pm[/math]0.00001536552
26927			-0.00599647483[math]\pm[/math]0.00001538040
26926			-0.00649932378[math]\pm[/math]0.00001302331
26925			-0.00575464099[math]\pm[/math]0.00001530219
27079			-0.01025869470[math]\pm[/math]0.00002322298
27078			-0.01128036266[math]\pm[/math]0.00002135573
27075			-0.01037443017[math]\pm[/math]0.00002113646
27109			-0.00876887465[math]\pm[/math]0.00002411331
27107			0.01044530752[math]\pm[/math]0.00002188631
27116			0.00173242954[math]\pm[/math]0.00003084415
27112			-0.01142682761[math]\pm[/math]0.00002505827
27111			-0.00872760886[math]\pm[/math]0.00002117268
27128			0.00193441756[math]\pm[/math]0.00002177434
27127			0.00215712098[math]\pm[/math]0.00002186032
27124			0.00309070808[math]\pm[/math]0.00002235601
27139			-0.00288862444[math]\pm[/math]0.00002683943
27138			-0.00061608634[math]\pm[/math]0.00002396188
27137			-0.00275066778[math]\pm[/math]0.00002150471
27136			-0.00239423237[math]\pm[/math]0.00002151354
27134			-0.00355581434[math]\pm[/math]0.00002051114
27133			-0.00252193724[math]\pm[/math]0.00002181781
27132			0.00096332202[math]\pm[/math]0.00002224348
27143			-0.00210486278[math]\pm[/math]0.00002838738
27141			-0.00301990556[math]\pm[/math]0.00002515365
27160			0.00171264744[math]\pm[/math]0.00002170610
27161			0.00224287304[math]\pm[/math]0.00002374488
27162			0.00118844445[math]\pm[/math]0.00002480837
27166			0.00077237006[math]\pm[/math]0.00002247548
27167			0.00216041281[math]\pm[/math]0.00002188669
27168			0.00083650625[math]\pm[/math]0.00002173328
27170			0.00151247511[math]\pm[/math]0.00002430185
27175			-0.01217485668[math]\pm[/math]0.00002235229
27176			-0.01049635167[math]\pm[/math]0.00002127680
27177			-0.01147445288[math]\pm[/math]0.00002149007
27179			-0.01025340153[math]\pm[/math]0.00002206557
27180			-0.00868272418[math]\pm[/math]0.00002169057
27181			-0.00973324188[math]\pm[/math]0.00002374079
27182			-0.00983862460[math]\pm[/math]0.00002233926
27183			-0.01901615252[math]\pm[/math]0.00002135060
27186			0.01079090635[math]\pm[/math]0.00002093983
27187			0.01155519076[math]\pm[/math]0.00002157075
27188			0.01086898605[math]\pm[/math]0.00002089859
27190			0.01181266490[math]\pm[/math]0.00002159430
27192			-0.00988459637[math]\pm[/math]0.00002151795
27193			-0.01047643036[math]\pm[/math]0.00002159742
27194			-0.01185520003[math]\pm[/math]0.00002134810

NPHE

To find out pion contamination in the electron sample i used Osipenko geometrical cuts. The number of photoelectrons before and after osipenko cuts are shown below:

No cuts	OSI Cuts
The number of photoelectrons without cuts	The number of photoelectrons with OSI cuts

For different fits:

The number of photoelectrons after OSICuts with two Gaussian fits

The number of photoelectrons after OSICuts with Landau+Gaussian fits

Pion Contamination

No cuts	OSI Cuts (Gauss(0)+Landau(3)+Gauss(6))	OSI Cuts (Gauss(0)+Gauss(3))	OSICuts + NPHE>2.5 (Gauss)
The number of photoelectrons without cuts	The number of photoelectrons with OSI cuts(gauss+landau+gauss)	The number of photoelectrons with OSI cuts two gaussian fits	The number of photoelectrons with OSI+NPHE cuts

OSICuts (Gauss(0)+Landau(3)+Gauss(6))

Assuming that the two gaussians represent number of photoelectrons and landau number of photons produced by high energy pions, the ratio of number of pions over the sum of electrons and pion in the electron candidate sample can be calculated in the following way:

OSIcut

[math] Pion Contamination = [/math]
[math] = \frac {Integral(landau(3))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =[/math]
[math] = \frac{1.643 \times 10^9}{ 7.682 \times 10^9 + 1.643 \times 10^9 + 7.732 \times 10^9} = [/math]
[math] = 9.6324 % [/math]

OSICut+NPHE>2.5

[math] Pion Contamination = [/math]
[math] = \frac {Integral(landau(3))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =[/math]
[math] = \frac{5.905 \times 10^8}{ 6.656 \times 10^9 + 5.905 \times 10^8 + 7.395 \times 10^9} = [/math]
[math] = 4.03305% [/math]

OSICuts (Gauss(0)+Gauss(3))

In case of only two gaussians, the number of photoelectrons produced by pions is described by Gauss(0) and the number of photoelectrons created by electrons is Gauss(3). Pion contamination is calculated below for both cases, without and with NPHE>2.5 cut.

OSICut

[math] Pion Contamination = [/math]
[math] = \frac {Integral(gauss(0))}{Integral(gauss(0) + gauss(3))} =[/math]
[math] = \frac{2.151 \times 10^8}{ 2.151 \times 10^8 + 1.594 \times 10^{10} } [/math]
[math] = 1.3 % [/math]

With NPHE>2.5 Cut

[math] Pion Contamination = 0 [/math]

Number of Events after NPHE>2.5 Cut

[math] Number of Events after NPHE\gt 2.5 Cut [/math] =
[math] = \frac{2.978 \times 10^8}{3.496 \times 10^8} = [/math]
[math] = 85.18 % [/math]

Counts in FCup

[math]Ratio of Counts 24/13 = \frac{2.131 \times 10^6}{2.116 \times 10^6} = 1.007 [/math]

6/12/09

1.) Improve Chi^2 in NPe fits.

2.) Calculate uncertainty in pion contamination measurement by changing mean and widths according to fit error.

3.) Pulse pair FC asymmetry, and End of Run accumulated FC asym.

pulse pair [math]\equiv \sum_i(\frac{FC(i)^+ - FC(i)^-}{FC(i)^+ + FC(i)^-})[/math]

End of Run sum [math]\equiv \frac {\sum_i(FC(i)^+) - \sum(FC(i)^-)}{\sum (FC(i)^+) + \sum(FC(i)^-)})[/math]

4.) Determine semi-inclusive statistic as function of X

Uncertainty in Pion Contamination

Maximum

[math] Pion Contamination = [/math]
[math] = \frac {Integral(landau(3))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =[/math]
[math] = \frac{1.645 \times 10^9}{ 7.695 \times 10^9 + 1.645 \times 10^9 + 7.745 \times 10^9} = [/math]
[math] = 9.6283 % [/math]

[math] Pion Contamination = [/math]
[math] = \frac {Integral(landau(3))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =[/math]
[math] = \frac{5.914 \times 10^8}{ 6.666 \times 10^9 + 5.914 \times 10^8 + 7.427 \times 10^9} = [/math]
[math] = 4.02740 % [/math]

Minimum

[math] Pion Contamination = [/math]
[math] = \frac {Integral(landau(3))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =[/math]
[math] = \frac{1.642 \times 10^9}{ 7.67 \times 10^9 + 1.642 \times 10^9 + 7.719 \times 10^9} = [/math]
[math] = 9.64124 % [/math]

[math] Pion Contamination = [/math]
[math] = \frac {Integral(landau(3))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} =[/math]
[math] = \frac{5.895 \times 10^8}{ 6.645 \times 10^9 + 5.895 \times 10^8 + 7.401 \times 10^9} = [/math]
[math] = 4.02788 % [/math]

Pion Contamination

It appears that pion contamination in electron sample is 9.63 % [math]\pm[/math] 0.01 % before nphe cut and after nphe>2.5 cut contamination is about 4.029% [math]\pm[/math] 0.003.

X_bjorken

1). alldataOSICuts_X.root - OSICuts applied.

2). alldataOSICuts_X_epx.root - OSICuts applied and electron and pion are required.

3). alldataOSICuts_X_epxnphe.root - OSICut and nphe>2.5 cuts applied and electron and pion are required.

4). alldataX_epxwithoutcuts - No cuts, electron and pion required.

Number of Events after cuts

No Cuts	OSI Cuts	OSI+NPHE>2.5 Cuts
[math]6.724 \times 10^7[/math]	[math]4.606 \times 10^7[/math]	[math]3.868 \times 10^7[/math]
	68.5 %	57.5 %

Error Calculation

Tthe error in the asymmetry measurement would be [math]\frac{\Delta A}{A} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{N}}[/math]

X_b	[math] Number(X_b)^+[/math]	[math] Number(X_b)^-[/math]	X_b Asymmetry	Error
0.1	[math]5.25 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]5.25 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]-4.001 \times 10^{-4}[/math]	0.00087251693
0.2	[math]5.52 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]5.3 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]-7.86 \times 10^{-4}[/math]	0.0008507530911145
0.3	[math]3.496 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]3.50 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]-9.025 \times 10^{-4}[/math]	1.0691459e-03
0.4	[math]2.0379 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]2.04 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]-8.37 \times 10^{-4}[/math]	0.0014004231
0.5	[math]1.14 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]1.15 \times 10^6[/math]	[math]-2.978 \times 10^{-4}[/math]	0.0018665742
0.6	[math]6.37\times 10^5[/math]	[math]6.38 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]-1.115 \times 10^{-3}[/math]	0.0016477095
0.7	[math]3.514 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]3.519 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]-8.26 \times 10^{-3}[/math]	0.0022190018
0.8	[math]2.022 \times 10^5[/math]	[math] 2.042 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]-5.039 \times 10^{-3}[/math]	0.00291609
0.9	[math]1.348 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]1.34 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]2.935 \times 10^{-3}[/math]	0.003592967
1	[math]1.038 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]1.033 \times 10^5[/math]	[math]2.47 \times 10^{-3}[/math]	0.0040928449

I am pretty sure X_{BJ} > 0.8 is not possible with our data set

Electron theta angle and [math]Q^2[/math] cuts

electron theta angle for different X_b

[math]Q^2[/math]

X_b when [math]Q^2 \lt 1[/math]

Number of Events for X_b>0.8 [math] = \frac{3531}{313537} = 1.1 %[/math]

plot the vertex of the above hits with X>0.8

change below to log plots so we can see where XBj stops

10/23/09

After Months of working on detectors and writing thesis proposal it is now time to start doing some physics.

1.) Determine how pion contamination uncertainty changes when you change fit parameters by 1 S.D., 2 S.D., and 3 S.D.

2.) FC asymm plots

3.) Vertex plot for X > 0.8 events.

4.) Now that we have good electron cuts. Plot statistics for Pion cuts.

5.) After pion cuts we start looking add paddle efficiencies so we can subtract sem-inclusive rates using individual paddles but opposite magnetic fields.

Xbjorken

Vertex plot for X > 0.8 events and others

I chose 1<Q^2<4 cut because we used it to plot phi angle in cm frame vs relative rate to compare with the results in paper.

Cuts	X_bjorken	[math]Q^2[/math]	Vertex X	Vertex Y	Vertex Z
OSI Cuts + EC Cuts
OSI Cuts + EC Cuts + X_b>0.8
OSI Cuts + EC Cuts + X_b<0.8
OSI Cuts + EC Cuts + 1<Q^2<4

Cuts	The scattered electron energy	[math]\theta[/math] electron scattering angle
[math]X_b \gt 0.8[/math]
[math]X_b \lt 0.8[/math]

FC Asymmetry

FC Asymmetry plot using the following method : End of Run sum [math]\equiv \frac {\sum_i(FC(i)^+) - \sum(FC(i)^-)}{\sum (FC(i)^+) + \sum(FC(i)^-)})[/math]

Pion contamination

Determine how pion contamination uncertainty changes when you change fit parameters by 1 S.D., 2 S.D., and 3 S.D.

Pion contamination(3 S.D.) in electron sample is 9.645 % [math]\pm[/math] 0.025%.

It doesnt really change from using 1 S.D.

Pion Statistics

Before and after cuts the plot of EC_tot/P vs nphe(for pions)

10/30/09

After Months of working on detectors and writing thesis proposal it is now time to start doing some physics.

1.) Determine how pion contamination uncertainty changes when you change fit parameters by 1 S.D., 2 S.D., and 3 S.D.

2.) Do pulse pair FC asymm plot

3.) Check program's calculation of event with X > 0.8 events. and compare to similar event with X < 0.8

4.) Use statistics for Pion cuts to estimate SIDIS statistical error -vs- Xbj

5.) After pion cuts we start looking add paddle efficiencies so we can subtract sem-inclusive rates using individual paddles but opposite magnetic fields.

1.)

1.) Determine how pion contamination uncertainty changes when you change fit parameters by 1 S.D., 2 S.D., and 3 S.D.

In case of 10 S.D. : [math]9.446 % \pm 0.233 %[/math] && [math]3.76 % \pm 0.08 %[/math]

3.)

[math]X_b\gt 0.8[/math]

 I suspect the X_b >0.8 event below are pions mis-identified as electrons

To figure out.  Write down event number for events below as well as run number and file name.  The use path length and Scintillator TDC  time to determine beta under assumption that particle is a pion.   Does the momentum and energy make sense?  Download the cooked data file from JLab for these events so we can use CED to look at them and bosdump to look at the reconstruction.

• 1

       Ebeam=5736
       IBeam=4.2
       ITorus=2248
       ITarg=122
       BeamPol=0.71
       TargetPol=-0.67
       BadRun=0
       Target=18
       PolPlate=0
       Version=2
       Prescalers:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
dump=13
W= 1.3504
Q= 4.78723
final electron energy= 2.6823
initial electron energy= 5.736
electron theta angle= 32.3896

• 2

       Ebeam=5736
       IBeam=4.2
       ITorus=2248
       ITarg=122
       BeamPol=0.71
       TargetPol=-0.67
       BadRun=0
       Target=18
       PolPlate=0
       Version=2
       Prescalers:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
dump=13
W= 1.41085
Q= 5.1186
final electron energy= 2.41678
initial electron energy= 5.736
electron theta angle= 35.3749

• 3

       Ebeam=5736
       IBeam=4.2
       ITorus=2248
       ITarg=122
       BeamPol=0.71
       TargetPol=-0.67
       BadRun=0
       Target=18
       PolPlate=0
       Version=2
       Prescalers:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
dump=13
W= 1.2575
Q= 4.83661
final electron energy= 2.7851
initial electron energy= 5.736
electron theta angle= 31.9378

[math]X_b\lt 0.8[/math]

• 1

W= 3.07188
Q= 0.229403
final electron energy= 1.0543
initial electron energy= 5.736
electron theta angle= 11.177

• 2

hit return for next event, q to quit: 
W= 2.48202
Q= 1.382
final electron energy= 2.18587
initial electron energy= 5.736
electron theta angle= 19.1106

• 3

hit return for next event, q to quit: 
W= 2.92788
Q= 0.274895
final electron energy= 1.49046
initial electron energy= 5.736
electron theta angle= 10.2878

4.)

[math]\pi^+[/math] && [math]B^+[/math]	[math]\pi^-[/math] && [math]B^+[/math]	[math]\pi^-[/math] && [math]B^-[/math]	[math]\pi^+[/math] && [math]B^-[/math]

1-12-09

Root files: alldatasector26990_4.root, alldatasector26990_5.root, alldatasector27113_4.root, alldatasector27113_5.root.

9/13/09

1.) Determine how pion contamination uncertainty changes when you change fit parameters.

Fit parameters	Pion Contamination
1 S. D.	9.63 % [math]\pm[/math] 0.01 %
3 S. D.	9.645 % [math]\pm[/math] 0.025 %
10 S. D.	9.446 % [math]\pm[/math] 0.0233 %

2.) Do pulse pair FC asymm plot

I did it for one file(dst27113_00.B00) and it was zero.

3.) Check program's calculation of event with X > 0.8 events. and compare to similar event with X < 0.8

 I suspect the X_b >0.8 event below are pions mis-identified as electrons

To figure out.  Write down event number for events below as well as run number and file name.  
The use path length and Scintillator TDC  time to determine beta under assumption that particle is a 
pion.   Does the momentum and energy make sense?  Download the cooked data file from JLab for 
these events so we can use CED to look at them and bosdump to look at the reconstruction.

Calculation is right, need to check CED, but dont have it on daq.

4.) Use statistics for Pion cuts to estimate SIDIS statistical error -vs- Xbj

Insert table with X bj, number of reconstructed pions, statistical error.

no cut

root alldatasector27113_5_1.root

root [9] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(2);
(const Double_t)3.50713558335003626e+01
root [10] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(2);
(const Double_t)1.23000000000000000e+03

root [11] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(3);
(const Double_t)1.85200000000000000e+03
root [12] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(3);  
(const Double_t)4.30348695827000256e+01

root [13] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(4);
(const Double_t)3.06431068920891256e+01
root [14] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(4);
(const Double_t)9.39000000000000000e+02

root [15] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(5);
(const Double_t)3.68000000000000000e+02
root [16] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(5);  
(const Double_t)1.91833260932508765e+01

(const Double_t)1.91833260932508765e+01
root [17] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(6);
(const Double_t)1.14017542509913792e+01
root [18] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(6);
(const Double_t)1.30000000000000000e+02

root [19] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(7);
(const Double_t)4.10000000000000000e+01
root [20] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(7);  
(const Double_t)6.40312423743284853e+00

root [21] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(8);
(const Double_t)3.74165738677394133e+00
root [22] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(8);
(const Double_t)1.40000000000000000e+01

root [23] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(9);
(const Double_t)5.00000000000000000e+00
root [24] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(9);  
(const Double_t)2.23606797749978981e+00

root [25] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(10);
(const Double_t)1.41421356237309515e+00
root [26] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(10);
(const Double_t)2.00000000000000000e+00

with cut

root alldatasector27113_5.root

root [3] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(2);
(const Double_t)2.89827534923788761e+01
root [4] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(2);                           
(const Double_t)8.40000000000000000e+02

root [5] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(3);  
(const Double_t)3.77491721763537456e+01
root [6] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(3);
(const Double_t)1.42500000000000000e+03

root [7] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(4);  
(const Double_t)2.82488937836510701e+01
root [8] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(4);
(const Double_t)7.98000000000000000e+02

root [9] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(5);  
(const Double_t)1.81107702762748346e+01
root [10] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(5);
(const Double_t)3.28000000000000000e+02

root [11] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(6);  
(const Double_t)1.04880884817015154e+01
root [12] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(6);
(const Double_t)1.10000000000000000e+02

root [13] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(7);  
(const Double_t)6.24499799839839831e+00
root [14] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(7);
(const Double_t)3.90000000000000000e+01

root [15] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(8);  
(const Double_t)3.60555127546398912e+00
root [16] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(8);
(const Double_t)1.30000000000000000e+01

root [17] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(9);  
(const Double_t)1.73205080756887719e+00
root [18] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(9);
(const Double_t)3.00000000000000000e+00

root [19] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(10); 
(const Double_t)0.00000000000000000e+00
root [20] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(10);
(const Double_t)0.00000000000000000e+00

root [21] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(11);  
(const Double_t)0.00000000000000000e+00
root [22] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(11);
(const Double_t)0.00000000000000000e+00

root [23] .p X_bjorken->GetBinError(12);  
(const Double_t)0.00000000000000000e+00
root [24] .p X_bjorken->GetBinContent(12);
(const Double_t)0.00000000000000000e+00

[math]x_b[/math]	Error
0.1	0.034503278
0.2	0.026490647
0.3	0.035399616
0.4	4.255675067
0.5	0.095346259
0.6	0.160128154
0.7	0.277350098
0.8	0.577350269

5.) After pion cuts we start looking add paddle efficiencies so we can subtract sem-inclusive rates using individual paddles but opposite magnetic fields.

Your B-field sign change does effect paddle distribution?

The table below represents the distribution of electrons and pions on the scintillator paddles using the reaction

e(p/d,e')\pi X

File number	electron	electron	[math]\pi^+[/math]	[math]\pi^-[/math]
26990, B<0
27113, B>0

• 1.) 7< Sector_paddle <11 - (B>0, [math]\pi^-[/math]) - 15.3% && (B<0, [math]\pi^+[/math]) - 10.9%

• 2.) 25< Sector_paddle <29 - (B>0, [math]\pi^+[/math]) - 7.775% && (B<0, [math]\pi^-[/math]) - 10.97%

[math]\frac{\Delta d}{d}[/math] && [math]\frac{\Delta d}{d}[/math]

Using Two runs: 26990(NH3, -2250) and 27124(ND3, +2250)

root files: alldatasector27124_4.root && alldatasector27124_5.root

root files: alldatasector26990_4.root && alldatasector26990_5.root

Pion Paddle Number

Negative Torus

Using runs with NH3 target

Detected particles in the final state	Pion Paddle Number	X_b vs pion paddle number	Chosen pion paddle number
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^+[/math]			7
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^-[/math]			27

Detected particles in the final state and chosen pion paddle number	[math]e^-[/math] paddle number	[math]X_b[/math] vs [math]e^-[/math] paddle number	[math]X_b[/math] vs [math]e^-[/math] paddle number when [math]x_b\lt 0.3[/math]	[math]X_b[/math] vs [math]e^-[/math] paddle number when [math]x_b\gt 0.3[/math]
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^+[/math], [math]PaddleNumber_{\pi^+}=7[/math]
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^-[/math], [math]PaddleNumber_{\pi^-}=27[/math]

Positive Torus

Using runs with NH3 target

Detected particles in the final state	X_b vs pion paddle number	Chosen pion paddle number
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^+[/math]		27
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^-[/math]		7

Detected particles in the final state and chosen pion paddle number	[math]e^-[/math] paddle number	[math]X_b[/math] vs [math]e^-[/math] paddle number	[math]X_b[/math] vs [math]e^-[/math] paddle number when [math]x_b\lt 0.3[/math]	[math]X_b[/math] vs [math]e^-[/math] paddle number when [math]x_b\gt 0.3[/math]
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^+[/math], [math]PaddleNumber_{\pi^+}=27[/math]
[math]e^-[/math] && [math]\pi^-[/math], [math]PaddleNumber_{\pi^-}=7[/math]

2/10/2010

root file	reaction	[math]Q^2[/math]	W vs [math]Q^2[/math]	[math]F_{cup}[/math]	[math]X_b[/math]	[math]X_b\gt 0.3[/math]	# events for <1.232
1	B<0, pi^-=27 && e^-=11						9868
2	B>0, pi^+=27 && e^-=11						412
3	B>0, pi^+=27 && e^-=7						793
4	B>0, pi^-=7 && e^-=11						400
5	B<0, pi^+=7 && e-=11						9406

Rate differences

[math]R_{ep \rightarrow \pi^-X} \equiv \frac{B\lt 0, \pi^- = 27, e^- = 11}{B\gt 0, \pi^- = 7, e^- = 11} [/math]

Which paddle do we expect the Pion to hit if we flip the direction of the B-Field?

Only using Certain Paddles

[math]Ratio_1 = \frac{1(B\lt 0*\pi^-=27*e^-=11)}{2(B\gt 0*\pi^+=27*e^-=11)} = 24[/math]

[math]Ratio_2 = \frac{5(B\lt 0*\pi^+=7*e^-=11)}{4(B\gt 0*\pi^-=7*e^-=11)} = 19[/math]

[math]\frac{Ratio_1}{Ratio_2} = 1.2[/math]

or

[math]Ratio_3 = \frac{1(B\lt 0*\pi^-=27*e^-=11)}{5(B\lt 0*\pi^+=7*e^-=11)} = 1.2[/math]

[math]Ratio_4 = \frac{4(B\gt 0*\pi^-=7*e^-=11)}{2(B\gt 0*\pi^+=27*e^-=11)} = 1.03[/math]

Looking at Ratio_3 and Ratio_4 one can make a conclusion that we are detecting ~[math](11 \pm 8)[/math]% more [math]\pi^-[/math] type hadrons.

Choosing events Below 1.232 GeV && Certain paddle numbers

[math]Ratio_3 = \frac{1(B\lt 0*\pi^-=27*e^-=11)}{5(B\lt 0*\pi^+=7*e^-=11)} = \frac{9868}{9406} = 1.05 [/math]

[math]Ratio_4 = \frac{4(B\gt 0*\pi^-=7*e^-=11)}{2(B\gt 0*\pi^+=27*e^-=11)} = \frac{400}{412} = 0.97 [/math]

22-02-2010

• NH3 Target, two file lists: NH3Bn.list (B<0, 26994-26983) && NH3Bp.list (B>0, 27074-27079)

no paddle cuts

• A.) B>0

1.) B>0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math] && [math]\pi^{+}_{PaddleNumber} = 27[/math], NH3Bp1_1.root

2.) B>0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math] && [math]\pi^{-}_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math] , NH3Bp2_1.root

• B.) B<0

1.) B<0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 11[/math] && [math]\pi^{+}_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math], NH3Bn1_1.root

2.) B<0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 11[/math] && [math]\pi^{-}_{PaddleNumber} = 27[/math] , NH3Bn2_1.root

Paddle Cuts

Again, choosing events below 1.232 GeV, applying cuts, and plotting Histograms for certain electron and pion paddles.

[math]W[/math]_vs_[math]Q^2[/math], [math]Q^2[/math], Fcup && [math]x_B[/math].

• A.) B>0

1.) B>0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math] && [math]\pi^{+}_{PaddleNumber} = 27[/math], NH3Bp1.root

2.) B>0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math] && [math]\pi^{-}_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math] , NH3Bp2.root

• B.) B<0

1.) B<0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 11[/math] && [math]\pi^{+}_{PaddleNumber} = 7[/math], NH3Bn1.root

2.) B<0, [math]e^-_{PaddleNumber} = 11[/math] && [math]\pi^{-}_{PaddleNumber} = 27[/math] , NH3Bn2.root

File	[math]Q^2[/math]	W vs [math]Q^2[/math]	[math]F_{cup}[/math]	[math]X_b[/math]
NH3Bp1.root				200px
NH3Bp2.root				200px
NH3Bn1.root				200px
NH3Bn2.root				200px

Now you need to cut on [math]Q^2[/math].  The above suggests that looking at 1 < [math]Q^2[/math] < 2 GeV/c^2 may be a good starting point.

The idea is to compare the outbending (B<0) [math] \pi^-[/math] rate in paddle 27 to the inbending(B>0) [math]\pi^-[/math] rate in paddle 7 when 1 < [math]Q^2[/math] < 2. For the same kinematics the rates should be the same because the reaction is the same. Do the same for [math]\pi^+[/math] to see if it is consistent. This will show much flipping the magnet polarity impacts the rate measurement. Are the differences due to the B-field change or the scintillator efficiency, or to the track reconstruction? Our goal is to argue that the detector has the same efficiency for detecting [math]\pi^-[/math] and [math]\pi^+[/math] in the same scintillator when the Torus B-field direction is flipped.

1 < [math]Q^2[/math] < 2

File	W vs [math]Q^2[/math]	[math]F_{cupint}[/math]	[math]X_b[/math]
NH3Bp1.root	200px
NH3Bp2.root	200px
NH3Bn1.root	200px
NH3Bn2.root	200px

[math]X_{bj}[/math] bin	Bp1/Bn1	Bp2/Bn2
0.1	2.38 [math]\pm[/math] 0.299	1.09 [math]\pm[/math] 0.405
0.2	1.29 [math]\pm[/math] 0.188	3.59 [math]\pm[/math] 0.215
0.3	1.38 [math]\pm[/math] 0.242	4.6 [math]\pm[/math] 0.284
0.4	1.62 [math]\pm[/math] 1.02	3.76 [math]\pm[/math] 1.28

[math]\frac{B\gt 0 * \pi^+}{B\lt 0 * \pi^+} = \frac{0.0001}{0.00008} = 1.25 \pm 0.13[/math]

[math]\frac{B\gt 0 * \pi^-}{B\lt 0 * \pi^-} = \frac{0.0003255}{0.00006955} = 4.68 \pm 0.156 [/math]

Angle vs Paddle Number Distribution

#	[math]\theta[/math] angle vs paddle number	[math]\phi[/math] angle vs paddle number
B>0, [math]\pi^+[/math] && [math]e^-[/math]
B>0, [math]\pi^-[/math] && [math]e^-[/math]
B<0, [math]\pi^+[/math] && [math]e^-[/math]
B<0, [math]\pi^-[/math] && [math]e^-[/math]

26/04/2010

NH3Bn positive pion runs

7.root - 27.root

pion paddle number	x_bj=0.1	x_bj=0.2	x_bj=0.3	x_bj=0.4
1	10 [math]\pm[/math] 3.16	38 [math]\pm[/math] 6.16	20 [math]\pm[/math] 4.47	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4
2	14 [math]\pm[/math] 3.7	60 [math]\pm[/math] 7.7	28 [math]\pm[/math] 5.3	0
3	20 [math]\pm[/math] 4.5	93 [math]\pm[/math] 9.6	48 [math]\pm[/math] 6.9	3 [math]\pm[/math] 1.7
4	26 [math]\pm[/math] 5.1	87 [math]\pm[/math] 9.3	53 [math]\pm[/math] 7.3	5 [math]\pm[/math] 2.2
5	24 [math]\pm[/math] 4.9	94 [math]\pm[/math] 9.7	42 [math]\pm[/math] 6.5	6 [math]\pm[/math] 2.4
6	30 [math]\pm[/math] 5.5	125 [math]\pm[/math] 1.1	79 [math]\pm[/math] 8.9	7[math]\pm[/math] 2.6
8	16 [math]\pm[/math] 4	102 [math]\pm[/math] 10	65 [math]\pm[/math] 8.1	4 [math]\pm[/math] 2
9	19 [math]\pm[/math] 4.3	96 [math]\pm[/math] 9.8	48 [math]\pm[/math] 6.9	3 [math]\pm[/math] 1.7
10	23 [math]\pm[/math] 4.8	98 [math]\pm[/math] 9.9	57 [math]\pm[/math] 7.5	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4
11	16 [math]\pm[/math] 4	71 [math]\pm[/math] 8.4	38 [math]\pm[/math] 6.2	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4
12	20 [math]\pm[/math] 4.5	85 [math]\pm[/math] 9.2	53 [math]\pm[/math] 7.3	6 [math]\pm[/math] 2.5
13	13 [math]\pm[/math] 3.6	73 [math]\pm[/math] 8.5	42 [math]\pm[/math] 6.5	5 [math]\pm[/math] 2.2
14	19 [math]\pm[/math] 4.3	75 [math]\pm[/math] 8.7	38 [math]\pm[/math] 6.2	3 [math]\pm[/math] 1.7
15	15 [math]\pm[/math] 3.9	62 [math]\pm[/math] 7.9	25 [math]\pm[/math] 5	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4
16	22 [math]\pm[/math] 4.7	58 [math]\pm[/math] 7.6	42 [math]\pm[/math] 6.5	0
17	5 [math]\pm[/math] 2.2	40 [math]\pm[/math] 6.3	23 [math]\pm[/math] 4.8	4 [math]\pm[/math] 2
18	10 [math]\pm[/math] 3.2	33 [math]\pm[/math] 5.7	18 [math]\pm[/math] 4.2	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4
19	7 [math]\pm[/math] 2.6	27 [math]\pm[/math] 5.2	21 [math]\pm[/math] 4.5	1 [math]\pm[/math] 1
20	3 [math]\pm[/math] 1.7	34 [math]\pm[/math] 5.8	13 [math]\pm[/math] 3.6	0
21	3 [math]\pm[/math] 1.7	16 [math]\pm[/math] 4	9 [math]\pm[/math] 3	0
22	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4	10 [math]\pm[/math] 3.2	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4	0
23	0	2 [math]\pm[/math] 1.4	3 [math]\pm[/math] 1.7	1 [math]\pm[/math] 1
24	0	1 [math]\pm[/math] 1	1 [math]\pm[/math] 1	0

NH3Bp positive pion runs

#p.root

pion paddle number	x_bj=0.1	x_bj=0.2	x_bj=0.3	x_bj=0.4
4	21 [math]\pm[/math]4.6	15 [math]\pm[/math] 3.9	2 [math]\pm[/math][math]1.4[/math]
5	39 [math]\pm[/math][math]6.2[/math]	58 [math]\pm[/math][math]7.6[/math]	18 [math]\pm[/math][math]4.2[/math]
6	56[math]\pm[/math] [math]7.5[/math]	91 [math]\pm[/math][math]9.5[/math]	49 [math]\pm[/math][math]7[/math]
7	90 [math]\pm[/math][math]9.5[/math]	110[math]\pm[/math] [math]11[/math]	82 [math]\pm[/math][math]9.2[/math]	5 [math]\pm[/math][math]2.2[/math]
8	81[math]\pm[/math] [math]9[/math]	155[math]\pm[/math] [math]12[/math]	78[math]\pm[/math] [math]8.8[/math]	3 [math]\pm[/math][math]1.7[/math]
9	68 [math]\pm[/math]8.1	139[math]\pm[/math] 12	85[math]\pm[/math] 9.2	4[math]\pm[/math] 2
10	83[math]\pm[/math] 9.1	181[math]\pm[/math] 13	88[math]\pm[/math] 9.4	8[math]\pm[/math] 2.8
11	102[math]\pm[/math] 10	164 [math]\pm[/math]13	96[math]\pm[/math] 9.8	8 [math]\pm[/math]2.8
12	103 [math]\pm[/math]10.1	188 [math]\pm[/math]13.7	122[math]\pm[/math] 11	8[math]\pm[/math] 2.8
13	85 [math]\pm[/math]9.2	203 [math]\pm[/math]14.2	132 [math]\pm[/math]11.5	16[math]\pm[/math] 4
14	105[math]\pm[/math] 10.2	219 [math]\pm[/math]14.8	120[math]\pm[/math] 10.9	11 [math]\pm[/math]3.3
15	116[math]\pm[/math] 10.8	192[math]\pm[/math] 13.8	113 [math]\pm[/math]10.6	8 [math]\pm[/math]2.8
16	91 [math]\pm[/math]9.5	208[math]\pm[/math] 14.4	134[math]\pm[/math] 11.6	9[math]\pm[/math] 3
17	98 [math]\pm[/math]9.9	187[math]\pm[/math] 13.7	112[math]\pm[/math] 10.6	9[math]\pm[/math] 3
18	106 [math]\pm[/math]10.3	159 [math]\pm[/math]12.6	121[math]\pm[/math] 11	7 [math]\pm[/math]2.6
19	91 [math]\pm[/math]9.5	166 [math]\pm[/math]12.9	107[math]\pm[/math] 10.3	9[math]\pm[/math] 3
20	83 [math]\pm[/math]9.1	138 [math]\pm[/math]11.7	90 [math]\pm[/math]9.5	7[math]\pm[/math] 2.6
21	81[math]\pm[/math] 9	167 [math]\pm[/math]12.9	110[math]\pm[/math] 10.5	11 [math]\pm[/math]3.3
22	87 [math]\pm[/math]9.3	164 [math]\pm[/math]12.8	84[math]\pm[/math] 9.2	5[math]\pm[/math] 2.2
23	77 [math]\pm[/math]8.8	98[math]\pm[/math] 9.9	73[math]\pm[/math] 8.5	6 [math]\pm[/math]2.4
24	86[math]\pm[/math] 9.3	131[math]\pm[/math] 11.4	81[math]\pm[/math] 9	6[math]\pm[/math] 2.4
25	96 [math]\pm[/math]9.8	185[math]\pm[/math] 13.6	92 [math]\pm[/math]9.6	14[math]\pm[/math] 3.7
26	87 [math]\pm[/math]9.3	147 [math]\pm[/math]12.1	97 [math]\pm[/math]9.8	8 [math]\pm[/math]2.8
27	72[math]\pm[/math] 8.5	132 [math]\pm[/math]11.5	82[math]\pm[/math] 9.1	6 [math]\pm[/math]2.4
28	64[math]\pm[/math] 8	131 [math]\pm[/math]11.4	73 [math]\pm[/math]8.5	10[math]\pm[/math] 3.2
29	46[math]\pm[/math] 6.9	101[math]\pm[/math] 10	53 [math]\pm[/math]7.5	2[math]\pm[/math] 1
30	13[math]\pm[/math] 3.5	14 [math]\pm[/math]3.8	18 [math]\pm[/math]4.8	1 [math]\pm[/math]1

06-02-2010

Electron Efficiency

Chosen electron paddles are following for the positive and negative paddles respectively: 7 and 11.

electroneffbp.root &&  electroneffbn.root

B>0

TH1.Print Name  = Qsqrd, Entries= 323638, Total sum= 323634
fSumw[0]=0, x=-0.2
fSumw[1]=0, x=-0.1
fSumw[2]=0, x=9.71039e-18
fSumw[3]=0, x=0.1
fSumw[4]=3, x=0.2
fSumw[5]=21, x=0.3
fSumw[6]=93, x=0.4
fSumw[7]=285, x=0.5
fSumw[8]=575, x=0.6
fSumw[9]=1148, x=0.7
fSumw[10]=2478, x=0.8
fSumw[11]=9402, x=0.9
fSumw[12]=24380, x=1
fSumw[13]=31648, x=1.1
fSumw[14]=29967, x=1.2
fSumw[15]=27864, x=1.3
fSumw[16]=27157, x=1.4
fSumw[17]=26820, x=1.5
fSumw[18]=25603, x=1.6
fSumw[19]=25027, x=1.7
fSumw[20]=24470, x=1.8
fSumw[21]=23512, x=1.9
fSumw[22]=20320, x=2
fSumw[23]=13453, x=2.1
fSumw[24]=6738, x=2.2
fSumw[25]=2043, x=2.3
fSumw[26]=449, x=2.4
fSumw[27]=119, x=2.5
fSumw[28]=41, x=2.6
fSumw[29]=13, x=2.7
fSumw[30]=5, x=2.8
fSumw[31]=4, x=2.9

B<0

TH1.Print Name = Qsqrd, Entries= 716018, Total sum= 716011

fSumw[0]=0, x=-0.2
fSumw[1]=0, x=-0.1
fSumw[2]=180, x=9.71039e-18
fSumw[3]=112762, x=0.1
fSumw[4]=160348, x=0.2
fSumw[5]=91665, x=0.3
fSumw[6]=62692, x=0.4
fSumw[7]=46135, x=0.5
fSumw[8]=35169, x=0.6
fSumw[9]=28473, x=0.7
fSumw[10]=23810, x=0.8
fSumw[11]=20763, x=0.9
fSumw[12]=18452, x=1
fSumw[13]=16021, x=1.1
fSumw[14]=14494, x=1.2
fSumw[15]=12731, x=1.3
fSumw[16]=11610, x=1.4
fSumw[17]=10422, x=1.5
fSumw[18]=9437, x=1.6
fSumw[19]=8929, x=1.7
fSumw[20]=8149, x=1.8
fSumw[21]=7504, x=1.9
fSumw[22]=6209, x=2
fSumw[23]=4557, x=2.1
fSumw[24]=2948, x=2.2
fSumw[25]=1625, x=2.3
fSumw[26]=659, x=2.4
fSumw[27]=195, x=2.5
fSumw[28]=50, x=2.6
fSumw[29]=18, x=2.7
fSumw[30]=4, x=2.8
fSumw[31]=7, x=2.9

Electron Eff Result

Inclusive detected electrons -vs- Q-squared	Inclusive Missing Mass (W) for 1.0 Q^2 <1.2
The ratio of inclusive electrons detected in scintillator paddle #7 when Btorus >0 (B_p)to inclusive electrons detected by paddle 11 when B<0(B_n)	The inclusive missing mass W for each torus setting. Dashed line is B>0 and solid line is B<0

Media:electronefficiencyratioBp7Bn11.txt

Now plot efficiency as function of X_{BJ} and W < 1232 and require pion.

Positive Pion Efficiency dependence on [math]x_bj[/math]

Pion and electron both required.

W<1232 and [math]Q^2=1.1 GeV^2[/math]

Now cut on Q^2 where the inclusive electron rates are the same with both torus settings and then require at least one positive pion.

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

There appears to be a region around X_{Bj}= 0.2 which has the same number of pions detected for both torus settings.

Negative Pion Efficiency dependence on [math]Q^2[/math]

Pion and electron both required(e_sector=7 for B>0 && e_sector=11 for B<11).

Now cut on Q^2 where the inclusive electron rates are the same with both torus settings and then require at least one positive pion.

[math]Q^2[/math]	B_p/B_n Rates
0.2	0.004 [math]\pm[/math]0.55
0.3	0.017 [math]\pm[/math] 0.5
0.4	0.069[math]\pm[/math] 0.6
0.5	0.0262[math]\pm[/math] 0.6
0.6	0.039[math]\pm[/math] 0.5
0.7	0.1 [math]\pm[/math]0.64
0.8	0.055[math]\pm[/math] 0.52
0.9	0.259[math]\pm[/math] 0.52
1	1.232[math]\pm[/math] 0.52
1.1	3.96[math]\pm[/math] 0.8

There DOES NOT appears to be a region which has the same number of negative pions detected for both torus settings.

What is wrong?

8/13/10

1.) Change Osipenko cuts to maximize electrons when B <0 but still minimize impact of negative pion contamination. Look at effects on Npe distribution.

Insert current number of electron events that are removed by the Osipenko cut for B<0. Compare it to event removed by other cuts.

2.) Schedule Prelim exam.

Shropshire has replaced cole.

Members are: Forest, Fisher, Shropshire, Dale, Tatar(?)

Ask Dustin McNulty

1.) [1]

"Original cut parameters generated by Osipenko et.al. were not very efficient for especially outbending data of eg1b experiment. The loss of electrons was substantial. For inbending data, loss of electrons were at acceptable level. To gain some electrons back we generated new cut parametes that will specifically work better for outbending data. Also we slightly adjusted the cut parameters for inbending data for some sectors and segments."

2.) Upgraded Proposal defense presentation(includes event display) File:TamarProposalP 1.pdf

11/10/10

DTS files used for analysis.

Media:ND3Bn.txt
Media:ND3Bp.txt
Media:NH3Bn.txt
Media:NH3Bp.txt

positive

negative

What are the cuts for the above histogram?

 pion, OSI, EC

11/30/10

DST ntuple suggestions

1. Event number and run number should be recorded. Run number is in RUNINFO. Event number should be in the event packet.
2. Create variable called helicity and fill it with absolute helicity.

GEM detector

1. order mylar and copper tape., 1" wide, $20 worth of each
2. check DPO 4104 see if working properly
3. find 10 frames for Qweak GEM foils (or order more)
4. check gas supply

12/6/10

DST ntuple

Run number looks good.

PbPt values are all non-zero now.

1) Some of the TORUS values are zero when they should be positive?

Doesnt matter. There are totally four files: ND3_target+Torus_positive, ND3_target+Torus_negative, NH3_target+Torus_positive and NH3_target+Torus_negative. So not an issue.

2.) Electrons have less than 0.25 GeV energy?

Still dont know.

3.) ASYM=HWP*LINAC*P_T is in the root file.

4.) Where are the FC normalization histograms

Delta_D_over_D

12/20/10

DST

1.) Looks like a particle ID problem for outbending (B<0) negative pions.

Calculate the missing mass for the and stor it in M_X. (included and corrected in NTUPLE)

Redo all the ntuples.

All ntuples are done.

2.) is run 27048 OK (no target run(empty)), corrected for both target runs

3.) Current quarks(the core of the constituent quark without the gluons and sea quarks(covering). The mass of the current quarks(up and down) is 5-10 MeV), light cone?

pion momentum for different torus settings and targets

pion paddle number for different torus settings

Need a before and after cuts histogram with stats to see number of events dropped

1/24/11

1.) Find energy range with substantial ND3, pi- events when B <0.

Ratio plot for Q^2 and X_{BJ}

once you find the Q^2 and X_BJ range holding a reasonable amount of data.

2.) Inclusive electron scattering ratio of

Inclusiveelectrons -vs- Q-squared	Inclusive Missing Mass (W) for 1.0 Q^2 <1.2
[[|300px|thumb|The ratio of inclusive electrons detected in scintillator paddle #7 when Btorus >0 (B_p)to inclusive electrons detected by paddle 11 when B<0(B_n) NH3 Target]]	[[|300px|thumb|The inclusive missing mass W for each torus setting. Dashed line is B>0 and solid line is B<0]]
[[|300px|thumb|The ratio of inclusive electrons detected in scintillator paddle #7 when Btorus >0 (B_p)to inclusive electrons detected by paddle 11 when B<0(B_n)]]ND3 Target	[[|300px|thumb|The inclusive missing mass W for each torus setting. Dashed line is B>0 and solid line is B<0]]
[[|300px|thumb|The ratio of inclusive electrons detected in scintillator paddle #7 when Btorus >0 (B_p)to inclusive electrons detected by paddle 11 when B<0(B_n)]] Both Targets	300px|thumb|The inclusive missing mass W for each torus setting. Dashed line is B>0 and solid line is B<0

3.) Semi Inclusive pion production ratios -vs- Q^2, Only electron cuts

/cache/mss/clas/eg1b/production/pass1/v4/4p2out/misc/dst/dst2828*