TD Ddoverd 2009

From New IAC Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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]\displaystyle{ \equiv \frac {\sum_i(FC(i)^+) - \sum(FC(i)^-)}{\sum (FC(i)^+) + \sum(FC(i)^-)}) }[/math]
26991 File:FC difference RunNumber26991 OSICuts.gif 0.00354260538 [math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.00001050400
26994 0.00367 [math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.00001088263
26993 0.002559223 [math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.00001120796
26992 0.003781[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001090044
26990 0.00331986321[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001203387
26989 0.00303841557[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001267152
26988 0.00380169243[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001097470
26987 0.00280163240[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001515270
26986 0.00352882616[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00000048897
26979 -0.00373104126[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001531706
26965 0.00454140439[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001534923
26964 0.00509434283[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001557226
26963 0.00405285155[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001575049
26961 0.00507456102 [math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001682744
26959 0.00523761694[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001488890
26958 0.00444205478[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.00001577510
26956 0.00504401620[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001565456
26955 0.00559913829[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001425736
26954 0.00494690728[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001443107
26953 0.00562598448[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001525797
26952 0.00485295834[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001293033
26951 0.00545485906[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001558637
26947 0.00465697160[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001144285
26945 -0.00556456389[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.00001389870
26943 -0.00656109472[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001540342
26942 -0.00669169106[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001526771
26941 -0.00676460417[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001100372
26940 -0.00643597022 [math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001397207
26939 -0.00650047456[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001405001
26938 -0.00632630313[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001411839
26937 -0.00533169794[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001417768
26934 -0.00601497156[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001422560
26933 -0.00586540500[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001414938
26932 -0.00587687192[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001383218
26931 -0.00630232566[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001495053
26930 -0.00684205010[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001541629
26929 -0.00521666944[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001555256
26928 -0.00682185316[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001536552
26927 -0.00599647483[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001538040
26926 -0.00649932378[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001302331
26925 -0.00575464099[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00001530219
27079 -0.01025869470[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002322298
27078 -0.01128036266[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002135573
27075 -0.01037443017[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002113646
27109 -0.00876887465[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002411331
27107 0.01044530752[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002188631
27116 0.00173242954[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00003084415
27112 -0.01142682761[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002505827
27111 -0.00872760886[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002117268
27128 0.00193441756[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002177434
27127 0.00215712098[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002186032
27124 0.00309070808[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002235601
27139 -0.00288862444[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002683943
27138 -0.00061608634[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002396188
27137 -0.00275066778[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002150471
27136 -0.00239423237[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002151354
27134 -0.00355581434[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002051114
27133 -0.00252193724[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002181781
27132 0.00096332202[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002224348
27143 -0.00210486278[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002838738
27141 -0.00301990556[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002515365
27160 0.00171264744[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002170610
27161 0.00224287304[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002374488
27162 0.00118844445[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002480837
27166 0.00077237006[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002247548
27167 0.00216041281[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002188669
27168 0.00083650625[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002173328
27170 0.00151247511[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002430185
27175 -0.01217485668[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002235229
27176 -0.01049635167[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002127680
27177 -0.01147445288[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002149007
27179 -0.01025340153[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002206557
27180 -0.00868272418[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002169057
27181 -0.00973324188[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002374079
27182 -0.00983862460[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002233926
27183 -0.01901615252[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002135060
27186 0.01079090635[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002093983
27187 0.01155519076[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002157075
27188 0.01086898605[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002089859
27190 0.01181266490[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002159430
27192 -0.00988459637[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002151795
27193 -0.01047643036[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.00002159742
27194 -0.01185520003[math]\displaystyle{ \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

06/11/09

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

OSICut+NPHE>2.5


[math]\displaystyle{ Pion Contamination = }[/math]
[math]\displaystyle{ = \frac {Integral(landau(3))}{Integral(gauss(0) + landau(3) + gauss(6))} = }[/math]
[math]\displaystyle{ = \frac{5.905 \times 10^8}{ 6.656 \times 10^9 + 5.905 \times 10^8 + 7.395 \times 10^9} = }[/math]
[math]\displaystyle{ = 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]\displaystyle{ Pion Contamination = }[/math]
[math]\displaystyle{ = \frac {Integral(gauss(0))}{Integral(gauss(0) + gauss(3))} = }[/math]
[math]\displaystyle{ = \frac{2.151 \times 10^8}{ 2.151 \times 10^8 + 1.594 \times 10^{10} } }[/math]
[math]\displaystyle{ = 1.3 % }[/math]

With NPHE>2.5 Cut

[math]\displaystyle{ Pion Contamination = 0 }[/math]

Number of Events after NPHE>2.5 Cut

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

Counts in FCup

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

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

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

Minimum

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

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

Pion Contamination

It appears that pion contamination in electron sample is 9.63 % [math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.01 % before nphe cut and after nphe>2.5 cut contamination is about 4.029% [math]\displaystyle{ \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]\displaystyle{ 6.724 \times 10^7 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 4.606 \times 10^7 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 3.868 \times 10^7 }[/math]
68.5 % 57.5 %


Error Calculation

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

X_b [math]\displaystyle{ Number(X_b)^+ }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ Number(X_b)^- }[/math] X_b Asymmetry Error
0.1 [math]\displaystyle{ 5.25 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 5.25 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -4.001 \times 10^{-4} }[/math] 0.00087251693
0.2 [math]\displaystyle{ 5.52 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 5.3 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -7.86 \times 10^{-4} }[/math] 0.0008507530911145
0.3 [math]\displaystyle{ 3.496 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 3.50 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -9.025 \times 10^{-4} }[/math] 1.0691459e-03
0.4 [math]\displaystyle{ 2.0379 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 2.04 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -8.37 \times 10^{-4} }[/math] 0.0014004231
0.5 [math]\displaystyle{ 1.14 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 1.15 \times 10^6 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -2.978 \times 10^{-4} }[/math] 0.0018665742
0.6 [math]\displaystyle{ 6.37\times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 6.38 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -1.115 \times 10^{-3} }[/math] 0.0016477095
0.7 [math]\displaystyle{ 3.514 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 3.519 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -8.26 \times 10^{-3} }[/math] 0.0022190018
0.8 [math]\displaystyle{ 2.022 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 2.042 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ -5.039 \times 10^{-3} }[/math] 0.00291609
0.9 [math]\displaystyle{ 1.348 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 1.34 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 2.935 \times 10^{-3} }[/math] 0.003592967
1 [math]\displaystyle{ 1.038 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 1.033 \times 10^5 }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ 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]\displaystyle{ Q^2 }[/math] cuts

electron theta angle for different X_b

[math]\displaystyle{ Q^2 }[/math]

X_b when [math]\displaystyle{ Q^2 < 1 }[/math]


Number of Events for X_b>0.8 [math]\displaystyle{ = \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]\displaystyle{ 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]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math] electron scattering angle
[math]\displaystyle{ X_b > 0.8 }[/math]
[math]\displaystyle{ X_b < 0.8 }[/math]

FC Asymmetry

FC Asymmetry plot using the following method : End of Run sum [math]\displaystyle{ \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]\displaystyle{ \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]\displaystyle{ 9.446 % \pm 0.233 % }[/math] && [math]\displaystyle{ 3.76 % \pm 0.08 % }[/math]

3.)

[math]\displaystyle{ X_b>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]\displaystyle{ X_b<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]\displaystyle{ \pi^+ }[/math] && [math]\displaystyle{ B^+ }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^- }[/math] && [math]\displaystyle{ B^+ }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^- }[/math] && [math]\displaystyle{ B^- }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^+ }[/math] && [math]\displaystyle{ 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]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.01 %
3 S. D. 9.645 % [math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math] 0.025 %
10 S. D. 9.446 % [math]\displaystyle{ \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]\displaystyle{ 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]\displaystyle{ \pi^+ }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^- }[/math]
26990, B<0
27113, B>0
  • 1.) 7< Sector_paddle <11 - (B>0, [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^- }[/math]) - 15.3% && (B<0, [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^+ }[/math]) - 10.9%
  • 2.) 25< Sector_paddle <29 - (B>0, [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^+ }[/math]) - 7.775% && (B<0, [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^- }[/math]) - 10.97%

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


alldatasector26990_4.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]\displaystyle{ e^- }[/math] && [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^+ }[/math] 7
[math]\displaystyle{ e^- }[/math] && [math]\displaystyle{ \pi^- }[/math] 27


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


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


DeltaDoverD_Progress

Retrieved from "https://wiki.iac.isu.edu/index.php?title=TD_Ddoverd_2009&oldid=56513"