Run III Final Moller Results

1
Run III Final Moller Results

• E158 Collaboration Meeting
• JLab
• June, 2004
• Waled Emam
• Syracuse University

2
Outline

• Data (2003 2004)
• Moller Detector Results
• Monopole Asymmetry
• Azimuthal Dependence in Moller Detector
• Beam Corrections
• First-Order Beam Systematics
• Beam False Asymmetries
• Comparing Regression and Dithering

3
Data (2003 2004)
Yury reprocessed the data in April 2004. He made
significant changes in the way that some cuts
are applied. This led to significant changes in
the Moller asymmetry value.
4
Shown difference in number of events RMS for
the two data sets of 2003 and 2004
2003 refers to the data processing that took
place in Dec. 2003 while 2004 refers to the
reprocessing that took place in Apr. 2004
5
Shown Moller asymmetry for the two data sets of
2003 and 2004
6
Monopole Asymmetry
Grand Moller asymmetry per slug per run.
Grand Asymmetry 17.7 /- 14.9 ppb Total
Correction 2.9 /- 38.4 ppb
Chi2 41/36
7
Rings comparisons
Detector Chi2/ndf
IN 43/36
MID 40/36
OUT 86/36
8
Energy HWP comparisons
9
Timeslot comparisons
10
Energy HWP comparisons for each
ring
11

Azimuthal Dependence in
Moller Detector
Shown is the azimuthal asymmetry per channel
for the Moller detector rings using the
longitudinal 48GeV 45GeV data in Run III


12
IN dipole
13
MID dipole
14
OUT dipole
15
Azimuthal asymmetries per ring
Detector Monopole (ppb) Xdipole (ppb) Chi2/ndf Ydipole (ppb) Chi2/ndf
IN 15.8 /- 24.5 -58.9 /- 30.9 45/36 -7.9 /- 28.6 80/36
MID 26.7 /- 19.4 -48.2 /- 25.4 34/36 30.6 /- 22.8 97/36
OUT 4.8 /- 26.9 -112 /-38.8 142/36 110 /- 35.5 211/36

16
Beam Corrections

Beam corrections per slug
Total beam asymmetries slopes correctins
Parameter Beam Asymmetry Slopes Correction (ppb)
Q 73.7 /- 287 ppb 0.002 ppb/ppb -0.6 /- 2.0
E -2.3 /- 1.9 KeV -17.58 ppb/KeV 24.2 /- 38.2
X -9.3 /- 5.9 nm -0.18 ppb/nm -10.5 /- 2.5
Y 12.1 /- 5.9 nm -0.58 ppb/nm -20.3 /- 5.4
dX -0.0 /- 0.2 nard 16.38 ppb/nrad 6.8 /- 4.8
dY 0.2 /- 0.1 nrad 18.45 ppb/nrad 3.2 /- 4.3
Total - - 2.9 /- 38.4

17
Beam slopes per slug
Beam asymmetries per slug
18
Beam corrections per ring
Q
dX
X
dY
E
Y
19
Monopole Dipole corrections per
ring
Detector Asymmetry (ppb) Total Correction (ppb)
Moller monopole 17.7 /- 14.9 2.9 /- 38.4
In monopole 15.8 /- 24.5 51.0 /- 51.0
Mid monopole 26.7 /- 19.4 49.6 /- 64.
Out monopole 4.8 /- 26.9 -159.0 /- 42.3


In dipole X -58.9 /- 30.9 57.6 /- 28.0
Mid dipole X -48.2 /- 25.4 244.9 /- 87.4
Out dipole X -111.8 /- 38.8 154.9 /- 150.4


In dipole Y -7.9 /- 28.6 -52.3 /-17.9
Mid dipole Y 30.6 /- 22.8 133.2 /- 94.
Out dipole Y 110.1 /- 35.5 405.1 /- 161.6

20
First-Order Systematics
Error Corr. Suppression
Parameters Corr. (ppb) Suppression Error (ppb)
Q -0.6 - 0.0
E 24.2 2.58 0.63
X -10.5 2.04 0.22
Y -20.3 3.57 0.73
dX 6.8 8.44 0.58
dY 3.2 4.69 0.15
TOTAL 2.9 - 1.15
The total error is the quadratic sum of
all above errors
How did we get this ?
21
How did we get 2.58 suppression factor on
energy E ?
1- We first calculate the following ratio per
slug for E 2- Plot the above value verses
slug number 3- Take the
error on the above average from the plot the
average. This is the suppression factor on
E. 4- Similarly we calculated the other
suppression factors.


0,1 refer to the two timeslots
22
The timeslot analysis is so powerful!
Syst. Error (ppb)
0.0
0.63
0.22
0.73
0.58
0.15
1.15
Jitter Error (ppb)
2.0
38.2
2.5
5.4
4.8
4.3
38.4
Parameters
Q
E
X
Y
dX
dY
TOTAL
Timeslot analysis
The biggest suppression occurs for Energy
23
Beam False Asymmetries
Error Slope. Suppression
Parameter Regression Slope Suppression Error (ppb)
Energy -17.58 ppm/KeV 4.4 -0.77
Angle X -16.38 ppm/urad 36.0 -0.12
Angle Y 18.45 ppm/urad 21.5 0.08
Target X -0.018 ppm/um 16.2 -0.02
Target Y -0.58 ppm/um 6.8 -0.04
TOTAL - - -0.87
The total error is the direct sum of
all above errors
How did we get this ?
24
How did we get 36.0 suppression factor on angle
X ?
1- We first calculate the following quantity for
angle X 2- Take the error on the above
value. This is the suppression factor on angle X.
3- Similarly we calculated the other
suppression factors.


C1, C2 refer to the calibration constants X_agr
is the BPM agreement on angle X.
Systematic error on beam false asymmetry is less
than 1 ppb.
25
Comparing Regression with Dithering
Regression Dithering
Grand Asymmetry (ppb) 15.8/-15.1 16.8 /- 15.7
Total Correction (ppb) -1.3/- 38.7 -2.3 /- 39.0
Difference between regression and dithering is
1 ppb.
Parameter Beam Asymmetry Reg. Correction (ppb) Dit. Correction (ppb)
Q 60.5 /- 290 ppb -0.5 /- 2.0 -3.2 /- 3.5
E -1.7 /- 1.9 KeV 20.5 /- 38.6 25.4 /- 39.4
X -8.2 /- 5.9 nm -10.3 /- 2.5 -5.3 /- 2.7
Y 12.1 /- 6.0 nm -20.5 /- 5.4 -25.1 /- 6.6
dX -0.0 /- 0.2 nrad 6.7 /- 4.8 1.5 /- 6.0
dY 0.2 /- 0.1 nrad 2.8 /- 4.3 4.3 /- 5.3
Total - -1.3 /- 38.7 -2.3 /- 39

26
Moller grand asymmetries for dithering and
regression
27
Regression Dithering IN
28
Regression Dithering MID
29
Regression Dithering OUT
30
Conclusion

• Total of 154.51 MP after cuts.
• Considering the regression set, the blinded
  Moller asymmetry is 17.7 /- 14.9 ppb with
  total correction 2.9 /- 38.4 ppb.
• Considering the dithering regression set, the
  blinded Moller asymmetry is 16.8 /- 15.7 ppb and
  15.8 /- 15.1 ppb respectively with a difference
  1 ppb.
• The First-Order Beam Systematic error is 1.15
  ppb for regression.
• Less than 1 ppb systematic error due to false
  beam asymmetry.