[Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Pt for ND3 runs 16889 to 16935

[Gregory Matousek]

Whoops,

Turns out that I never used the deuteron asymmetry table, despite the analysis being ND3.

I've corrected for this in the following updated slideshow. The most compelling plots are from slide 8 (a comparison with Harut's extraction) and slide 9, where I overlayed the RCDB Tpol atop the asymmetries. We can see that there is a far closer match between RCDB and Pt extracted from inclusive e'X asymmetries.

As for the cross check, I'll provide that information tomorrow.
________________________________
From: Sebastian Kuhn <kuhn at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 6:21 PM
To: Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu>
Cc: rgc_analysis at jlab.org <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>; Harut Avagyan <avakian at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Pt for ND3 runs 16889 to 16935

Hi Gregory,

thanks for keeping us up to date. Yes, this is a good place to post your results; however, I’m not sure whether Harut is subscribed, so I cc’d him just to be sure.
We won’t have an analysis meeting tomorrow, where we normally would present results like yours. But it is helpful to have information exchange between all the different groups trying to work out the “true” target polarization. Unfortunately, we have a wide spread - from over 40% (Noemie) to 0 (online, beam charge asymmetry - corrected trigger-based). Yours is somewhere between the latter in Harut - see
https://userweb.jlab.org/~avakian/tmp/all-rgc-run-dep-16885-16947.nd3.pdf<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://userweb.jlab.org/*avakian/tmp/all-rgc-run-dep-16885-16947.nd3.pdf__;fg!!OToaGQ!sE2b0ahI4t988WOGG9fapV6Fz_Jqt4slJ_2LdxMgcnGjS8VZnp5MQ63P-qT1gpDBCGmgkoqtLQYRGSl0Pj4$>
It would be very useful if Harut could give you access to his numerical values, so you can plot them together with yours (including the NMR results). As I said before, there is something wrong with the way we treat the FCup weights - they should make the curve more SMOOTH, not more ragged. It looks like your results continue to be consistently lower than Harut’s - I believe this must be due to either
- different cuts (you already asked Harut to check your raw numbers vs. his)
- different dilution factors
- Different D(y) vs. D(eps, E’)
- Different models for A1d.

For starters, could we get a direct comparison of EACH of your A1d_theory for each x-bin, weighed-averaged in your case over the Q2 range for each x  with the number of data points as weights.

Thanks - Sebastian

On Sep 12, 2022, at 12:17 PM, Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu<mailto:gregory.matousek at duke.edu>> wrote:

Hello all,

Here are my target polarizations for the above listed run range. These were extracted using Sebastian's x-Q2 binning of the inclusive e'X A_LL asymmetries. I didn't know if this would be the best location for reporting my Pt extractions, so let me know if somewhere may be better.

 You can find the dataset in my work directory, along with others (see slideshow for details)

Best,
Gregory
<Target Polarization ND3 16889 - 16935.pdf>_______________________________________________
Rgc_analysis mailing list
Rgc_analysis at jlab.org<mailto:Rgc_analysis at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis__;!!OToaGQ!sE2b0ahI4t988WOGG9fapV6Fz_Jqt4slJ_2LdxMgcnGjS8VZnp5MQ63P-qT1gpDBCGmgkoqtLQYR4jyyiLE$>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20220913/96c9d6b4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Target Polarization ND3 16889 - 16935.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 658924 bytes
Desc: Target Polarization ND3 16889 - 16935.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20220913/96c9d6b4/attachment-0001.pdf>