1. Run III Final Moller Results E158 Collaboration Meeting JLab June, 2004 Waled Emam Syracuse University

2. Outline ● Data (2003 & 2004) ● Moller Detector Results – Monopole Asymmetry – Azimuthal Dependence in Moller Detector ● Beam Corrections – First-Order Beam Systematics – Beam False Asymmetries – Comparing Regression and Dithering

3. Data (2003 & 2004) - 37 Slugs: 15 Slugs at 45 GeV 22 Slugs at 48 GeV - Number of runs is 1010. - Number of Events is 154.5 MP - For the resluts shown in this talk : MollerEstat weights Moller = IN + MID + OUT Blinded Yury reprocessed the data in April 2004. He made significant changes in the way that some cuts are applied. This led to significant changes in the Moller asymmetry value.

4. * 2003 refers to the data processing that took place in Dec. 2003 while 2004 refers to the reprocessing that took place in Apr. 2004 Shown difference in number of events & RMS for the two data sets of 2003 and 2004*

5. Shown Moller asymmetry for the two data sets of 2003 and 2004*

6. Grand Moller asymmetry per slug & per run. Monopole Asymmetry Grand Asymmetry = 17.7 +/- 14.9 ppb Total Correction = 2.9 +/- 38.4 ppb Chi^2= 41/36

7. Rings comparisons DetectorChi^2/ndf IN 43/36 MID 40/36 OUT 86/36

8. Energy & HWP comparisons

9. Timeslot comparisons

10. Energy & HWP comparisons for each ring

11. Azimuthal Dependence in Moller Detector Shown is the azimuthal asymmetry per channel for the Moller detector rings using the longitudinal 48GeV & 45GeV data in Run III

12. IN dipole

13. MID dipole

14. OUT dipole

15. DetectorMonopole (ppb)Xdipole (ppb)Chi^2/ndfYdipole (ppb)Chi^2/ndf IN 15.8 +/- 24.5-58.9 +/- 30.945/36-7.9 +/- 28.680/36 MID 26.7 +/- 19.4-48.2 +/- 25.434/3630.6 +/- 22.897/36 OUT 4.8 +/- 26.9-112 +/-38.8142/36110 +/- 35.5211/36 Azimuthal asymmetries per ring

16. Beam Corrections Parameter Beam AsymmetrySlopesCorrection (ppb) Q 73.7 +/- 287 ppb0.002 ppb/ppb-0.6 +/- 2.0 E -2.3 +/- 1.9 KeV-17.58 ppb/KeV24.2 +/- 38.2 X -9.3 +/- 5.9 nm-0.18 ppb/nm-10.5 +/- 2.5 Y 12.1 +/- 5.9 nm-0.58 ppb/nm-20.3 +/- 5.4 dX -0.0 +/- 0.2 nard16.38 ppb/nrad6.8 +/- 4.8 dY 0.2 +/- 0.1 nrad18.45 ppb/nrad3.2 +/- 4.3 Total--2.9 +/- 38.4 Beam corrections per slug Total beam asymmetries & slopes & correctins

17. Beam slopes per slug Beam asymmetries per slug

18. Beam corrections per ring Q E X Y dX dY

19. DetectorAsymmetry (ppb)Total Correction (ppb) Moller monopole17.7 +/- 14.92.9 +/- 38.4 In monopole15.8 +/- 24.551.0 +/- 51.0 Mid monopole26.7 +/- 19.449.6 +/- 64. Out monopole4.8 +/- 26.9-159.0 +/- 42.3 Monopole & Dipole corrections per ring In dipole X-58.9 +/- 30.957.6 +/- 28.0 Mid dipole X-48.2 +/- 25.4244.9 +/- 87.4 Out dipole X-111.8 +/- 38.8154.9 +/- 150.4 In dipole Y-7.9 +/- 28.6-52.3 +/-17.9 Mid dipole Y30.6 +/- 22.8133.2 +/- 94. Out dipole Y110.1 +/- 35.5405.1 +/- 161.6

20. ParametersCorr. (ppb)SuppressionError (ppb) Q-0.6-0.0 E24.22.58%0.63 X-10.52.04%0.22 Y-20.33.57%0.73 dX6.88.44%0.58 dY3.24.69%0.15 TOTAL2.9-1.15 First-Order Systematics The total error is the quadratic sum of all above errors Error = Corr. * Suppression How did we get this ?

21. How did we get 2.58 % suppression factor on energy E ? 1- We first calculate the following ratio per slug for E: 2- Plot the above value verses slug number 3- Take the error on the above average from the plot the average. This is the suppression factor on E. 4- Similarly we calculated the other suppression factors. 0,1 refer to the two timeslots

22. Syst. Error (ppb) 0.0 0.63 0.22 0.73 0.58 0.15 1.15 Jitter Error (ppb) 2.0 38.2 2.5 5.4 4.8 4.3 38.4 Parameters Q E X Y dX dY TOTAL Timeslot analysis The timeslot analysis is so powerful! The biggest suppression occurs for Energy

23. ParameterRegression SlopeSuppressionError (ppb) Energy-17.58 ppm/KeV4.4%-0.77 Angle X-16.38 ppm/urad36.0%-0.12 Angle Y18.45 ppm/urad21.5%0.08 Target X-0.018 ppm/um16.2%-0.02 Target Y-0.58 ppm/um6.8%-0.04 TOTAL---0.87 Beam False Asymmetries Error = Slope. * Suppression The total error is the direct sum of all above errors How did we get this ?

24. 1- We first calculate the following quantity for angle X: 2- Take the error on the above value. This is the suppression factor on angle X. 3- Similarly we calculated the other suppression factors. How did we get 36.0 % suppression factor on angle X ? C1, C2 refer to the calibration constants X_agr is the BPM agreement on angle X. Systematic error on beam false asymmetry is less than 1 ppb.

25. Comparing Regression with Dithering Difference between regression and dithering is ~1 ppb. RegressionDithering Grand Asymmetry (ppb)15.8+/-15.116.8 +/- 15.7 Total Correction (ppb)-1.3+/- 38.7-2.3 +/- 39.0 ParameterBeam AsymmetryReg. Correction (ppb)Dit. Correction (ppb) Q60.5 +/- 290 ppb-0.5 +/- 2.0-3.2 +/- 3.5 E-1.7 +/- 1.9 KeV20.5 +/- 38.625.4 +/- 39.4 X-8.2 +/- 5.9 nm-10.3 +/- 2.5-5.3 +/- 2.7 Y12.1 +/- 6.0 nm-20.5 +/- 5.4-25.1 +/- 6.6 dX-0.0 +/- 0.2 nrad6.7 +/- 4.81.5 +/- 6.0 dY0.2 +/- 0.1 nrad2.8 +/- 4.34.3 +/- 5.3 Total--1.3 +/- 38.7-2.3 +/- 39

26. Moller grand asymmetries for dithering and regression

27. Regression & Dithering IN

28. Regression & Dithering MID

29. Regression & Dithering OUT

30.  Total of 154.51 MP after cuts.  Considering the regression set, the blinded Moller asymmetry is 17.7 +/- 14.9 ppb with total correction 2.9 +/- 38.4 ppb.  Considering the dithering & regression set, the blinded Moller asymmetry is 16.8 +/- 15.7 ppb and 15.8 +/- 15.1 ppb respectively with a difference ~1 ppb.  The First-Order Beam Systematic error is: 1.15 ppb for regression.  Less than 1 ppb systematic error due to false beam asymmetry. Conclusion