<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi Everybody,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I know that we are all working on finalizing various g12 analyses. However, we found a serious issue with our <span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">γp </span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande';" class="">→</span><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""> pω cross section that currently prevents us from moving on. We are somewhat stuck and it may affect the whole run group. </font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">The attached pictures show</font> the 3π invariant mass for the energy range 1650 - 1700 MeV and for forward angles of the <span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">3</span>π system. A nice <font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">ω peak is visible and a massive hole on the right side of the peak. This hole is not supposed to be there (unless somebody has a good physics argument). The energy range is probably very low for most of the g12 analyses. However, the hole will slowly move to higher masses with increasing photon energy but it will not disappear. The other two pictures show the same distribution if one (1) uses events where only sectors 1, 3, 5 triggered or alternatively, (2) only sectors 2, 4, 6 triggered. </font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">We assume the effect is based on track inefficiencies, perhaps dead regions in the drift chamber. In principle, Michael Kunkel’s "trigger map" should account for this since his approach is based on comparing two- and three-track events, i.e. it combines trigger and track inefficiencies; the idea is good. </font><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">In our analysis however, this trigger map leads to an overall disagreement with the g11 </font><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">ω cross section, whereas Zulkaida's current cross section is in fair agreement with g11 but exhibits certain problematic regions, e.g. the forward direction. These holes in the mass distributions are not accounted for by the Monte Carlo simulations and we assume the effect is not in the MC.</span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">We have a few questions we would like some help with (and need to find an answer for).</font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">1) Since it is still possible that the problem is at our end, would anybody be able to reproduce this problem for us? The effect is so big that even a quick and dirty look at it, will probably work.</font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">2) We tried to knock out dead TOF paddles as suggested in the analysis note. The paddle numbers are available in the data. However in the Monte Carlo, the numbers appear to be available only for the proton and not for the pions. Has anybody else noticed this issue? How do others knock out the paddles in the MC? Or is this done automatically? </font><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">It is difficult to do this based on measured angles since two particles with the same polar and azimuthal angles, one produced at the beginning of the target and one at the end, may hit different TOF paddles. The g12 target was very long.</span></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">3) The Monte Carlo “gpp" options given in the analysis note do not reproduce the holes in the mass distributions. For this reason, we do not know if dead wires are actually simulated and to what extent. Can anybody comment on this?</font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">This problem shows up in the </font><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">γp </span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande';" class="">→</span><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""> pω channel but we are concerned that it may also affect the two-pion channel we are analyzing, perhaps not as holes in mass distributions but as general track inefficiencies in certain regions of the drift chamber. In the latter case, it would extremely difficult to notice. </font><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">If so, it can potentially affect any reaction that uses Monte Carlo for the acceptance correction. My understanding is that we partially use the p</font><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">ω and the K</span>Λ cross sections to make sure that the g12 MC, trigger, etc. is working correctly.</div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">Best wishes,</font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Volker</font></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></body></html>