<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hello Everyone,<br><br>I wanted to show some *preliminary* results that I have recently produced and get some feedback. <br><br>Here I have calculated x^2g1 and (3/2)x^2g2 which are the two integrands to get d2p/2.<br>
<a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/x2g1g2_47_22.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/x2g1g2_47_22.png</a><br clear="all"></div>
This is just the 4.7 GeV data and I will have results on the 5.9 GeV soon. <br>
</div><div>These results include:<br></div><div>1.3 GeV minimum track energy<br></div><div>Cherenkov window cut<br></div><div>Background contamination<br></div><div>Elastic radiative tail subtraction<br><br></div><div>Here are g1 and g2 vs x:<br>
<a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/g1g2_47_16.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/g1g2_47_16.png</a><br><br></div><div>Here is the d2p integrand from the plots above.<br>
<a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/x2g1g2_47_d2_22.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/x2g1g2_47_d2_22.png</a><br><br></div>
<div>Again, these are just the results for 4.7 GeV data. <br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Here are A1 and A2 vs W:<br><a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/A1A2_47_W_noel_22.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/A1A2_47_W_noel_22.png</a><br>
</div><div>vs x:<br><a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/A1A2_47_noel_22.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/A1A2_47_noel_22.png</a><br>
</div>
<div><br><br></div><div>For comparison, in the links below you will find similar plots, however, before considering any background or subtracting the elastic tail. <br><a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/compare_x2g1g2_47_22.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/compare_x2g1g2_47_22.png</a><br>
<a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/compare_g1g2_47_22.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/compare_g1g2_47_22.png</a><br><a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/compare_A1A2_47_W_22.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/asymmetries/compare_A1A2_47_W_22.png</a><br>
<br><br></div><div>Some things I am still working:<br><br></div><div> - Internal Inelastic Radiative Tail<br></div><div> My new code produces a cross section which is much larger than the "equivalent radiator" result and slightly larger than the Fortran POLRAD code. You can see the results here <a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/cross_sections/inclusive/compare_IRT.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/cross_sections/inclusive/compare_IRT.png</a> . Of course there is a slight model difference between the born cross sections between the Fortran and C++ code but I don't think this is the cause of the differences.<br>
<br></div><div>- Background from lower energy events<br></div><div> As Oscar has shown (<a href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~rondon/analysis/asym/world/d2_Ef-W.pdf">https://userweb.jlab.org/~rondon/analysis/asym/world/d2_Ef-W.pdf</a>) there is a significan't contribution from background at lower energies. My background fit right now is crude at best and needs improved.<br>
<br></div><div>- Contamination from background <br></div><div> Within the analysis above the background is assumed to have no asymmetry and is thus a dilution. However, I have been working on calculating the asymmetry from MAID. Here is a crude result <a href="http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/RC/MAID_pi0_asymmetry.png">http://quarks.temple.edu/~whit/SANE/analysis_main/results/RC/MAID_pi0_asymmetry.png</a><br>
</div><div>(you can ignore the red line). The bottom shows the asymmetry while the top are the cross sections. I need to double check the jacobian (which is rather complicated) and to improve the integration over the electron angles.That said, an asymmetry on the order of 5% seems to persist. This is probably less improtant for the parallel data but could have a large impact on the perpendicular asymmeties. Also, better understanding this allows for the lower energy data to become useful.<br>
<br></div><div> - Phi binning. <br></div><div> The results above are not binned in phi, I just use the kinematic average. I made the phi bins too small to be effective. I will make them larger (fewer in number) and produce a comparison which will hopefully not be too different from taking the average.<br>
</div><div><br><br></div><div>Again, I will have 5.9 GeV results available soon which have more statistics than the 4.7GeV.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Any questions, feedback or comments are appreciated. Thanks for your attention.<br>
<br></div><div>-Whit<br></div><div><br><br></div><div><div>-- <br>Whitney Armstrong<br>
</div></div></div>