[Gdh_lowq2] EG4 meeting

[Xiaochao Zheng]

Dear Alexandre and all:

Just another weekly update: 

My student has converted all exclusive pi+/NH3 ntuple results to plain text files. I emailed these files to both Igor and Peter.  Peter has made some plots on the 3 GeV data. I believe he is looking at other energies right now. And we will keep discussing about the plots.  

Igor is taking shifts at Mainz and he said he will look at the data carefully when he comes back. He mentioned that if we need to combine bins to get higher statistics, he prefer that I do it, so that the combining process can be done properly.

Both Igor and Peter have expressed interest in the single-beam asymmetry Ae. I didn't expect this, and need to look at the systematic uncertainty of Ae carefully. At the first thought, the uncertainty of Ae should come only from the beam polarization, which would be from Moller alone. At the moment I am taking a simple average of the Moller error bars (for example if there are two Moller results during the 3GeV run period, I am taking the average of the two relative Moller uncertainties).  If Moller is indeed the only dominate error for Ae, then I plan to calculate the statistics-averaged value from multiple Moller measurement.  Please comment.

If eventually Ae is provided as results from EG4, should I add these to the analysis note too? 

I also found I have misused the uncertainty of (f*Pb*Pt), with f the dilution factor, as the systematic uncertainty for both Aet and At. The correct way should be to use the error of (f*Pb*Pt) for Aet alone. For At, the uncertainty should come from (f*Pt), not Pb. But since the elastic analysis provides the product of Pb*Pt, the correct way for At would be to add the relative uncertainty of Pb (Moller) to that of (f*Pb*Pt) in quadrature, to get a conservative estimate of the systematic uncertainty for (f*Pt) for At. The resulting relative uncertainty isn't too much higher than that of Aet because Moller typically have <2% of relative uncertainty.

I will keep everyone posted on the progress. Thanks,

Xiaochao

----- Original Message -----
From: "Xiaochao Zheng" <xiaochao at jlab.org>
To: "Alexandre Deur" <deurpam at jlab.org>
Cc: "gdh lowq2" <gdh_lowq2 at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:07:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Gdh_lowq2] EG4 meeting

Dear Alexandre and all:

I am never able to attend this meeting so it might help to provide an update on the exclusive analysis by email:

As some of you know, we received the review on our analysis note last fall. Reading through the review, the major concern is what physics conclusion can we draw from these results?  I discussed this with the exclusive group and we think the best way is to send the results to Igor and have him look at it. He will be able to compare the new data with all existing ones and come up with ideas.

Igor requested the data in plain text form, while my data were stored in ntuples.  I asked one of my 2nd-year students to work on the format conversion. It has been about two weeks and he has been making some progress. Once he completes for one kinematics, I will do a cross check and send the plain-text data to Igor, and we will proceed from there.

Thanks for your attention.

Xiaochao

PS is today already Jan. 28th?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandre Deur" <deurpam at jlab.org>
To: "gdh lowq2" <gdh_lowq2 at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 1:33:57 PM
Subject: [Gdh_lowq2] EG4 meeting

Dear EG4 collaborator,

We will have our EG4 analysis meeting today (Jan 28th) at
9:30am (EST) in room F227. Instructions to call-in can be found at:

http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg4/deur/call_in_procedure.html

Best regards,

Alexandre
_______________________________________________
Gdh_lowq2 mailing list
Gdh_lowq2 at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/gdh_lowq2