Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Jin Huang M.I.T. For Transversity Collaboration Meeting May 22, JLab.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Jin Huang M.I.T. For Transversity Collaboration Meeting May 22, JLab."— Presentation transcript:

1 Jin Huang M.I.T. For Transversity Collaboration Meeting May 22, JLab

2 Review MLE/Local Pair A_LT Result Cross Check Conclusion on Blue VS Red Team Beam Polarization Dec 08 Accident Helicity Sign Elastic Asymmetry Spin Precession Bottom Line Systematic AnalysisTowards Preliminary Result DSA Pion/Kaon BSA Pion Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 2

3 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 3

4  We developed a MLE method to extract angular modulation for our specific data feature  Demonstrated successful extraction of yield/asymmetry/SSA, DSA, BSA angular modulation  Compared to blue team, this MLE method is more likely to be systematically biased by yield drift  Although MLE gain more advantage at low statistics.  MLE could go to higher dimension fit Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 4

5  TMD terms associated w/ beam polarization ◦ Cross section = (Unpolarized Term)+ ◦ +ALT & ALL ◦ +ALU Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 5

6  We get modulation for all these terms, however more terms -> low precision… Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 6 Very Very Preliminary, Assuming Møller Sign Convention 10% N2 Dilution Assumed

7 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 7

8  There are difference between red and blue team results ◦ ~70% points consist ◦ For problem points, discrepancy could be as large as 1 sigma ◦ Exist for both SSA and DSA, Asymmetry and Modulation  Xin, Youcai and I have been hunting these discrepancy for the last week ◦ Cuts/Run Lists ◦ Method Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 8

9  Difference in ◦ Run Selection (further runs with hardware problem identified by Xin) ◦ Cuts/ Variable uses  We understand ◦ There is fundamental difference in method of these two teams Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 9

10 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 10  The phi_S, theta_S data file had problem

11 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 11  Indirectly checked by fitting sin(phi_h±phi_S) on DSA:

12 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 12  Raw SSA Based on very similar data set  Difference believed to be from different way combining local spin states

13  No mistake in asymmetry coding was found  Difference on Method ◦ Blue team Fit method is better for Pion SSA analysis ◦ MLE method is better for Kaon SSA/DSA analysis ◦ Both MLE/Fit methods OK for DSA pion analysis  Difference on Cut/Run List ◦ Remove Extra 17 Problematic Runs (L1A/DMA/… problem) identified by blue team ◦ 8 Runs with low LT remain off from MLE run list. OK for blue team method (local pair with in these runs) ◦ Remove “LHRS pion rejecter response>0” cut  3~4% more event in statistic ◦ Other difference on Cut/Variable use are negligible Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 13

14 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 14

15 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 15

16  Beam Polarization is major additional work for DSA compared with SSA  Absolute polarization is measured by Moller polarimeter on a weekly basis  Compton polarimeter, which was under upgrade, is kinds helpless for Transversity  Sign of helicity is tricky Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 16

17 # date day* Moller Moller with HALLA:p Syst.err / / /- 2.0% / / /- 3.0% / / /- 3.0% / / /- 3.0% / / /- 3.0% / / /- 3.0% / / /- 3.0% / / /- 3.0% / / /- 2.0% / / /- 2.0% / / /- 2.0% Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 17

18  A 3% drop in beam polarization within systematic uncertainty.  Raw polarization was identical as last one, difference came from beam energy measurement during Møller measurement  Ignored this point due to ◦ Beam energy measurement during Møller was not reliable anyway ◦ Small effect for result Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 18

19  Acute drop to ~50%  Problem found on “zoom box” of pockel cell  However, when did this problem started? ◦ Last beam polarization measurement was 6 day before in Hall B ◦ Injector expert believe it started 1 day before during a 12V power supply replacement ◦ This optioning was also backed up by large shift on beam charge asymmetry observed by Bryan Moffit  Conclusion, ◦ Adjust beam polarization to ~50% for 1 day ◦ Quoting sys. uncert. assuming for this 6 days between beam polarization could be 50%~80% (3% Rel. overall) Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 19

20 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 20

21  Beam helicity flip fast at 30Hz  Helicity signal flag each state  Relative phase (sign) between signal and helicity is unknown  Møller could tell the sign. However we miss the calibration between HRS signal sign and Møller sign  In alternative using physics asymmetry to calibrate the phase (Møller Sign Convention) Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 21

22  Using he3 elastic data to prediction the beam sign w/ one pass beam  Using electron spin precession calculation to predict beam helicity production 5 pass beam  This method was used in A1n analysis by X. Zheng Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 22

23  All run analyzed ◦ Nov 2008 ~ May 2009, Transversity through e’D ◦ Including elastic/quasi-elastic data with longitudinal/Transverse Polarized target ◦ Various Kinematics Points  Theory Prediction ◦ T. W. Donnelley reviewed rederived formula for our longitudinal elastic asymmetry ◦ Cross checked my understanding of the formula with him ◦ Cross checked with X. Zheng’s conclusion  The result is consistent Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 23

24 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 24 ExperimentRunTypeSpectrometerTarget DirectionBeam E / GeV Angle / Degree Q^2 / GeV^2IHWPRaw Sign Phys Asym Sign w/ Donnelly Phys Asym Sign w/ Zheng Expected Beam IHWP OUT Moller Pol. IHWP Out Cal Pol. IHWP Out Moller Sign/HRS Sign Transversity ElasticLeft HRSLongitudinal IN SAME SIGN Transversity Delta Res.Left HRSTransverse ?IN+1? SAME SIGN Transversity Delta Res.Left HRSTransverse ?IN? SAME SIGN d2n ElasticLeft HRSLongitudinal IN SAME SIGN d2n ElasticLeft HRSLongitudinal OUT SAME SIGN Ay ElasticLeft HRSLongitudinal OUT SAME SIGN Ay ElasticLeft HRSLongitudinal IN SAME SIGN Ay ElasticRight HRSLongitudinal OUT SAME SIGN Ay ElasticRight HRSLongitudinal IN SAME SIGN Ay1648Quasi-ElasticLeft HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN Ay1648Quasi-ElasticLeft HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN Ay20534Quasi-ElasticRight HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN Ay20534Quasi-ElasticRight HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN Ay ElasticLeft HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN Ay ElasticLeft HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN Ay ElasticRight HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN Ay ElasticRight HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN e'D ElasticLeft HRSLongitudinal IN SAME SIGN e'D ElasticLeft HRSLongitudinal OUT SAME SIGN e'D ElasticLeft HRSTransverse OUT SAME SIGN e'D ElasticLeft HRSTransverse IN SAME SIGN

25  How spin direction is Transported inside accelerator is well understood  Formula with consideration of north/south linac unbalanced  Constants of the accelerator was based on Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 7, (2004)  Checked with all Moller Measurements in 2008~2009 ◦ The amplitude and sign flips agree well  This method was also robust Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 25

26 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 26 DateE Linac NorthE Linac SouthE InjectorE Hall APassWein AngleMoller PolTotal Rot.PolPol. Ratio April 11, April 30, May 16, May 22, November 2, November 12, January 13, January 24, February 9, February 11, March 3, March 6, March 12, April 24, April 30, May 14, May 20, May 27, August 27, August 28, August 28, August 28, September 5, November 4, November 12, November 30, December 2, December 16, December 18,

27  The global HRS and Møller Sign Convention seems identical (different from Old Convention)  Could be change in signal cabling?  Major helicity signal routing working on Apr 25, 2008 ◦ Simplified HRS helicity signal route in CH ◦ After last Møller/HRS helicity sign check  Unless explicitly marked, following asymmetry plots in this talks follows old HRS helicity sign for history consistency Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 27

28  Drawn w/ Old Møller Convention Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 28

29 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 29

30  N2 dilution: 0.3~0.6% (Relative) (Stat only?)  BigBite Yield Drift: Suppressed to PPM level (Relative) due to helicity flips  MLE Non-local : 100PPM (Absolute Raw)  MLE Approximation: Asym^3 < 5%^3 =125PPM (Absolute Raw)  See MLE tech note for above two  HRS Kaon Cont. : 50%(Asym Max.) x 6%(Cross Section Max.) x 0.6% (Contamination) < 1.4e- 4 (Absolute Raw), smaller for pi- Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 30

31  Target Density Fluctuation: Cancelled to

32  Lifetime/Charge Correction : <10 PPM level Absolute Raw ◦ 10PPM is max difference w/o Charge/LT correction Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 32

33  Random Coincidence background is low ◦ Contamination is <0.7% for low x bin, <0.4% for others Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 33 Yield Compare Data CT e’pi Random CT/CV

34  Quoting Max 5% asymmetry  Overall effect < 10^-4 (Absolute Raw) ◦ Do not do correction on data ◦ Quoted as Sys. Uncert. Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 34

35  Quoting max asymmetry band for each bin  small contamination in coincidence channel  Overall effect < 0.05% (Absolute Raw) Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 35

36  Due to low stat. use 3 rd bin data for 4 th bin  Quoting max asymmetry band for each bin  Large Contamination on low x bin (~20%)  Overall effect ~1% for 1 st x bin, ~0.1% for high x bin (Absolute Raw) Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 36

37  Estimated from NLO theory calculation ◦ from Sassot et al ◦ Kinematics is close ◦ A_1h, assume no p_t dependance  Integrated A_1h -> SIDIS A_LL Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 37

38  Could use theory prediction to apply a correction  Or quote a systematic only (assume 100% uncertainty) Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 38

39  Bin Centering, Quoted 13% following SSA Rest Quoted 0% for now:  Radiation Correction  A_LL higher twist term leak  A_LT higher twist term leak Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 39

40 Sys. Uncert. (Ratio to Stat. Uncer.)Comment Itempi+ Bin 1pi+ Bin 2pi+ Bin 3pi+ Bin 4pi- Bin 1pi- Bin 2pi- Bin 3pi- Bin 4 N2 dilution8.1E-031.2E-021.5E-021.6E-021.8E-021.9E-021.5E-021.6E ~0.6% Relative Yield Drift 2.0E-062.4E-062.7E-063.4E-063.8E-064.1E-063.2E-063.8E-0611%(Drift)/(2*20*60 Spin Flip)*0.033(Heli flip)~PPM Relative MLE Non-local7.9E-028.1E-028.3E-028.2E-027.0E E-02<100PPM Absolute Raw MLE Approximation3.5E-046.1E-048.7E-041.7E-033.3E-034.2E-031.9E-033.8E-03= Asym^3 < 5%^3 =125PPM Absolute Raw BigBite π− Cont.6.8E-026.9E-022.8E-021.2E-022.3E-021.6E-021.5E-021.8E-03 Quote Asymmetry: pi+(3%, 4%,2%, 3%) pi-(4%, 5%,7%, 4%)-> Contamination small … BigBite Photon-induced electron Cont.7.8E-013.1E-019.9E-024.9E-027.7E-014.8E-011.2E-011.0E-01 Quote Asymmetry: (5%, 10%, 10%, 10%) -> Contamination pi+(1.1%, 0.69%, 0.17%, 0.17%) pi-(1.0%, 0.38%, 0.17%, 0.06%) Random Coincidence Correction:2.9E-021.5E-021.1E-021.4E-022.5E-021.4E-021.0E-021.3E-020.7%*4%~0.4%*2% = (3~2)*10e-4 Absolute Raw HRS Kaon Cont.2.9E E-032.9E-032.1E E-03 40%(Asym) x 6%(Cross Section) x 0.6% (Contam) = 1.4e- 4 Absolute Raw Bin Centering1.3E-01 13% (Following SSA, depending coming DSA calculation) Relative Target Density2.3E E E E %(Drift)/(2*20*60 Spin Flip)*0.033(Heli flip)~7PPM Absolute Raw Target Polarization6.5E-027.9E-029.1E-021.1E-011.3E-011.4E-011.0E-011.3E-015% Relative Beam Polarization6.9E-028.4E-029.6E-021.2E-011.3E-011.4E-011.1E-011.3E % Relative + 3.7% Max Rel. (Dec 08 Zoom Box problem at injector) Left HRS Single Track4.0E E E E-03<5e-5 Absolute Raw BigBite Tracking Quality4.0E E E E-03~1e-4 for Pi-; <5e-5 for Pi+ Absolute Raw Livetime/Charge Asymmetry Correction7.9E-048.1E-048.3E-048.2E-047.0E E-04MLE only: <10 PPM level Absolute Raw Radiation Correction0.0E+00 For Now A_LL leak1.6E E E E-02 Log 193, Max Data Band A1(8%~25%), Suppression Factor (13~7)-> Max Contamination (0.6~3.5%); Theory Bandx+- 100% A1 Pi+(3%,~ 2%), Pi-(1%~0.5%), -> Theory +-100% band Pi+(0.2%~0.3%), Pi- (0.07%), Absolute He3 A_LL higher twist0.0E+00 Q/M above, same factor of suppression. Ignored due to higher twist High Twist Effect0.0E+00 Suppression Factor 1.3 ~1.4%, direct fit central value shift >= 1 sigma. Ignored due to higher twist SUM Quard8.2E-014.0E-013.4E E-015.4E-012.5E-012.6E-01Squre Root Sum SUM Linear1.4E+009.5E-018.1E-017.9E-011.4E+001.1E+006.4E-016.5E-01Linear Sum Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 40

41 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 41

42 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 42

43 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 43

44  Uncertainties: ◦ Proton g1T ? ◦ Nuclear Effect ? ◦ FSI ? ◦ More Precise Proton Dilution ?  Predictions … ◦ Peter Schweitzer ◦ Alexei Prokudin ◦ A. Kotzinian Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 44 COMPASS Deuteron Eur. Phys. J. ST [ ]

45 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 45

46 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 46 ~10% N2+90%He3

47 Transversity Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 47 Very Preliminary


Download ppt "Jin Huang M.I.T. For Transversity Collaboration Meeting May 22, JLab."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google