[Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] A_LL PbPt for pass1

[Gregory Matousek]

Hi Sebastian,

To address your concern about the Pt blocks, I attached a few slides showing the same PbPt's for NH3 and ND3, now adding the run start dates and the corresponding RCDB Tpol. My explanation is that, when I made these asymmetry plots originally, the cooking was (and I think is?) still in progress. It looks like the Tpols I measure with A_LL match with the Tpol blocks of the RCDB. I am rerunning this analysis again one week later, hoping that more of the NH3 and ND3 runs since then have been cooked. I also see that the 2nd block of NH3 runs does not look as "erratic" after rescaling the y-axis, and it seems nicely in line with the RCDB Tpol.

I will also look into making that A1(x) vs. x plot and get it back to you by the end of the day.

Best,
Greg
________________________________
From: Sebastian Kuhn <kuhn at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:45 PM
To: Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu>
Cc: rgc_analysis at jlab.org <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>; Anselm Vossen, Ph.D. <anselm.vossen at duke.edu>
Subject: Re: [Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] A_LL PbPt for pass1

Hi Gregory,

this is a very nice and comprehensive study. Eventually, we should do the following:
- Simplify the plots by showing ONLY FC-corrected PbPt values (I think the C target “polarizations” show that those give the best agreement with the expected value of 0)
- If possible, put ALL runs for a given target type (NH3, ND3) on a single plot
- Further down the line: Once we have all C, MT, CH2 etc. runs analyzed, recalculate the dilution factors based on the full equations and the full statistics.

Meanwhile, just a couple questions just to make sure I am interpreting the results correctly:
1) NH3: Part 1/2 seems to show rather stable PbPt for each of the 2 halfs (Pt > 0 and Pt < 0). Do you agree? Meanwhile, Part 2/2 shows a bit more scatter (but that may be partially due to the zoomed-in vertical scale. However, from Part 1 and 2 it appears that we only had 3 blocks - one with Pt > 0, one with Pt <0, and then again one with Pt>0. This is a bit confusing to me, as the monitoring plot seems to show several positive Pt periods (5 if I count correctly) interspersed with 3 negative Pt periods, even when discounting the runs before July. See attached plot. Can you explain the discrepancy?

2) ND3: Again, if I read Parts 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 in sequence, it appears to me that you count only 1 positive Pt, 1 negative Pt, then again 1 positive Pt, followed by just 3 runs with negative Pt. Actually, the 4 blocks agree with 4 blocks I see in the monitoring plot, but those seem to have a lot more runs, especially for the last negative Pt block. Did you not have all of these runs available when you ran your analysis?

Maybe I misunderstood something - it would help if we could translate run number into date…


Thanks - Sebastian



[FTon1.jpeg]

On Apr 16, 2024, at 2:00 PM, Gregory Matousek via Rgc_analysis <rgc_analysis at jlab.org> wrote:

Hi all,

Here is a PDF compiling the pass1 PbPt as of today. I broke this apart into the NH3, ND3, and C cooking. I also showed the raw count asymmetry for the individual runs, and the FCup asymmetries. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification!

Best,
Greg
<RG-C Summer2022 DIS A_LL's.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!uEPc_qiS9mQ851LYxCpTjuw5zI5mBXqZ2DV--W_5x-1kDAOLtiwbYC7yI2hyFdlr7OB-Hh1DJuFV6w8xKEU$>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20240423/02b55fe6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FTon1.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 194665 bytes
Desc: FTon1.jpeg
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20240423/02b55fe6/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RG-C 4_23_2024.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 419414 bytes
Desc: RG-C 4_23_2024.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20240423/02b55fe6/attachment-0001.pdf>