Analysis OverAnalysis Overviewview

Kent PaschkeKent Paschke

HAPPEX Collaboration MeetingHAPPEX Collaboration Meeting

February 24, 2006February 24, 2006

February 24 – April 21February 24 – April 21SundaySunday MondayMonday TuesdayTuesday WedWed ThursdayThursday FridayFriday SaturdaySaturday

24 TODAY24 TODAY 2525

2626 2727 2828 11 22 3 Analysis I3 Analysis I 44

55 66 77 88 99 10 Analysis II10 Analysis II 1111

1212 1313 1414 1515 1616 17 Analysis III17 Analysis III 1818

1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 24 Analysis IV24 Analysis IV 2525

2626 2727 2828 2929 3030 31 Analysis V31 Analysis V 11

22 33 44 55 66 7 Analysis VI7 Analysis VI

COLLAB COLLAB MEETINGMEETING

8 COLLAB 8 COLLAB MEETINGMEETING

99 1010 1111 1212 1313 1414 1515

1616 1717 1818 1919JLAB JLAB Seminar?Seminar?

2020 21 21 2222

23 APS Talk23 APS Talk 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 2929

Technical NotesTechnical Notes

Publications

• 2005 Hydrogen + Helium measurement – Letter

Technical “Notes” Draft date

• Optics/Q2 – Tim, Rob, Bob (Bryan, UMass) ?• Finite acceptance – Bryan, David L., Kent ?• Backgrounds – Ryan, Kent, Bryan, Bob ?• Asymmetry analysis – Lisa, Rich, Hachemi, KK ?• Polarimetry – David L., Paul S., Hachemi ?• Transverse Asymmetry– Lisa, Kent ?• Beam asymmetries• Cavity performance

Raw Asymmetry AnalysisRaw Asymmetry Analysis

Near-term: - epics words added to run .db files, re-run data, slug-pair and run-summary root files (Lisa) I- Inclusive RUNLIST check: review of runs in data set to verify runlist/run cuts. (Lisa) I

Medium-term: • Dither Quality Control (Syracuse) -I

Review of averaged dither slopes, verifying consistency, avoiding outliers, etc. There have been almost NO quality checks for dither slope calculation/averaging. • Averaging (Lisa and Syracuse) - II

-modify run macro to avoid "binning" errors in averages - macros to average asymmetries by run, slug. - macros to average weighted pos difs and Aq.- pedestal error over run

• Pedestals/Linearity (Lisa) - III- Evaluate possible pedestal errors over run. - Verify pedestals at each current scan - Verify pedestals used for run periods.

• He Slugs 39-41. Fix these. (UMass) -II• Exclusive RUNLIST check – Ryan• Detector Weights (UMass) - II• Density Fluctuations, detector correlations (UMass) -IV

Raw Asymmetry AnalysisRaw Asymmetry Analysis

Longer-term:

• Beam Correction Quality (Umass) -V- Check systematics for large asymmetry runs- Characterize difference between regression and dithering - Estimate uncertainty in dithering/regression corrections. This is very important for helium.

•“Final” Data Set (Umass and Syracuse) - V- Make “Final” run root files with final cuts, pedestals, slope averages, pair and run sum. files- Verify pedestals, cuts, double differences, asymmetry corrections for final data set. - perform final averaging, with various summary tables similar to last year. - Evaluate asymmetry systematic error (pedestal, beam corrections, Aq correction).

• Tech Note! -V

BackgroundsBackgrounds

Helium QE is almost done! • Check stability over many measurements - I

Rescattering: significant work remains -III• Aluminum to be removed from rescattering probability –II • Det pedestals for very low rates (if necessary) -II• Correct rescattering for convolution with inelastic spectrum. -II• Subtract radiative tail from inelastic spectrum

- Requires simulation, but doesn’t need to be precise. (BRYAN) - II

Aluminum: easy, but important cross checks must be done -III• Verify on-line results, mainly trigger quality in counting and pedestals in integrating mode• Verify observed Al dummy targets consistent with He/H cryo target spectra• Reduced density target runs to verify “xT” factor - V

BackgroundsBackgrounds

Poletip: not yet started • Propagate through field map to “measure” fraction of pole-tip intersections (Bob) - II• Estimate possible number of near-tangent pole-tip intersections via SNAKE/gener_cone (Bryan, Kent)

•check sensitivity to details of collimation

• Tech Note!

QQ22 Much like last year, and much already done. Addendum note to last year’s tech-note is called for.

• Optics issues related to limited sieve collimator coverage?• additional cross-checks of matrix elements vs. fp parameters... where does the matrix fail... or eliminate holes and re-fit optics db to check for errors. - I• But NO CLEAR ERROR SIGNAL REMAINS... is there really anything here to worry about?

• Cross-check (Rob) - III

• Stability/Drift issues. (defer, but think about this) • weight asymmetry average by (changing) Q2?• Was this stable during hydrogen (Bob, - II)

• Profile Scanner. • Compare distribution parameters for drift over time• Track Q2 measurement vs. profile parameters over time• Compare profile moments from scanner vs. spectrometer – Bob, on spectrometer: I. UMass, on scanner,: - II.

•Simulation, reproduce Q2 distribution?

SimulationSimulationgener_cone + SNAKE:

• Reproduce Q2 distribution – (update in I)

• Radiative tail for subtraction in rescattering background calculation - II

• Average ANS over acceptance, radiative corrections (Tech Note) -V

• Average analyzing power over acceptance? (probably negligible)

•Estimate possible number of near-tangent pole-tip intersections via SNAKE/gener_cone (Bryan, Kent) - III

•check sensitivity to details of collimation

• MUCH additional work which may not be needed for unblinding:• Improve match to magnetic transport, use optics db to reconstruct sieve pattern. Do we have comparable data without the septum (for future)?• improve Multiple Scattering• Match low density runs.... although what this takes isn’t clear

PolarimeteryPolarimetery

• Electron Detector re-analysis•straight-forward, but requires some labor? •waiting for the photon analysis method to be refined, to spin both photon and electron analysis together•We need David L to oversee this analysis

• Photon response function -> analyzing power. A better fit should reduce analyzing power systematic uncertainty.

• ~2 weeks before automated procedure for response function fit

• Compton co-incidence measurement?

• We need to have polarimetery top agenda at next meeting. How stable is the polarimetry analysis now? What is needed to finish it, at a minimal level? - I

• Mott results (vertical component most important) - II (for Helium syst)• Moller results – smaller error bar? (how about vertical pol error bar?)• Tech Note

Transverse AsymmetryTransverse Asymmetry

Goal: to complete soon after unblinding.

• Verify background asymmetry ranges• Verify pedestals, beam corrections. Use precision estimates from longitudinal runs for correction precision estimates• Polarimetery: verify precision of Moller, come up with a defendable precision estimate

• WEEK IV L/R correction factor for He. (kent)

• Tech note...

2005 - Physics Asymmetry2005 - Physics Asymmetry

Hydrogen

HeliumAPV: ~ 0.21 ppm (3.5%)GE

s: ~ 0.014

2004:

APV: ~ 0.84 ppm (11.2%)GE

s: ~ 0.042

APV: ~ 0.12 ppm (8%)GE

s+0.084GMs: ~ 0.012

2004:

APV: ~ 0.24 ppm (17%)

GEs+0.080GM

s: ~ 0.025

NOTE: Statistical error only!

Systematic error will likely increase Helium error bar by <30%, and Hydrogen by <20%

Getting the story out – future talksGetting the story out – future talks• JLab Seminar - April 21, 2006?

• First (JLab) release of 2005 results - <name?>

• APS @ Dallas - April 22-25, 2006 - April

• First public release of 2005 results - Paul Souder

• (session chaired by KK)

• PAVI @ Milos - May 16-20, 2006

• HAPPEX 2005 results – David Armstrong

• Control of Beam Asymmetries- Kent P

• Transverse Asymmetry – Lisa K

• Q2 and Backgrounds – Bryan M

• CIPANP @ Rio Mar - May30-June 3, 2006

• HAPPEX 2005 results – Krishna Kumar

PREx Preparations Meeting Feb 25, 2006

A110, CEBAF Center

9:00 - 9:30 Paul Task List / Warm Septum 9:30 - 10:00 Bob New Electronics 10:00 - 10:30 David Compton Upgrade 10:30 - 11:00 KK Detector Design 11:00 - 11:30 Eugene High-Field Moller 11:30 - 12:00 Discussion of other tasks