New since 12/13/2012 and still valid after 1/10/2013: - From DW: Deadtime correction for DIS1 and DIS2 wide path, run-by-run? (your page 26 of original SOM writeup had only narrow path). - From DW: What is the RC ratio for all resonances, and the simulated , if using: 1) Bosted's fit for cross section throughout; 2a) DIS formula for the asymmetry; and 2b) toy model formula for the asymmetry. For both 2a) and 2b), do not use any theory models for resonances, but do use the proper quasi- and elastic formula. The above might help to understand RES#3 better, and 2a), maybe even 2b) is a potential evidence for duality. - From KP (and DW): Are PID correction dependent on narrow/wide paths? 12/19/2012: previous results was narrow, will get both narrow and wide. - From KP (and DW): Need PID corrections for all resonances. -> apply to AsymResults.xls to get the corrected reosnance asymmetries -> Table 15 and 16. **************************************************** The following has been updated 2013/1/10 **************************************************** ************************** For NIM: ************************** From XZ: Need to add a table summarizing all kinematics including RES. From DW: Need all run-by-run deadtime corrections for RES (values are in the 2013/1/10 writeup, but missing uncertainties). Make sure to include both narrow and wide. From KP: Overall electron and pion rates for all DIS and RES - as suggested by Bob: should list overall rates for all DIS and RES to show that the deadtime is proportional to rates in the first order. ************************** For the resonance paper ************************** From XZ: Need to complete SOM and update the analysis results of the paper throughout. From XZ: Need to contact J. Erler for C1,2 values at RES kinematics (?). Numbers in the resonance paper but not SOM: DIS formula values for Ares. ************************** For the SOM ************************** ---------------------- in Section 3.4, RM/som_beam_pol.tex ---------------------- From DW: need separate values for Compton and Moller for DISs (Table 5); - For this, we may not need to include the separate values in Table 5, but it is important to show the difference between Compton and Moller and how consistent they are. From my time log (see Table 2 in Sec.3.1), Moller had the last measurement done at 4.8 GeV which is shown in both Fig. 4 and 5, while Compton was done only at 6 GeV. This is fine, however when comparing Compton with Moller (see texts between Fig.4 and Fig.5), the average of Moller data in Fig.5 was shown as 88.97% (which I assume include also the 4.8 GeV point) and was compared with 89.45% from Compton. So if we do not show numbers in Table 5, we need to remove the last Moller point from both Fig.5 and the numbers in the text. From DW: confirm Compton, Moller, and COmbined values for RESs (Table 6). - I asked for confirmation because the Compton number was shown for RES 3, 4, 5 and 7. RES#7 was taken at 6 GeV and there was COmpton, fine. But did we really have Compton for RES 3,4,5? The answer is NO, by just looking at Fig.5. Also, RES3,4,5 and 7 were taken one month apart, how likely do they have exactly the same Compton values? To summarize, all above issues are related to integrity of the paper and should be cleared up. Perhaps this can reveal some problem in the analysis too. ---------------------- in Section 3.5, KP/som_bpmcalib.tex ---------------------- From KP: Need bull's eye calibration ---------------------- in Section 3.6, KP/som_optics.tex ---------------------- From KP: need vertex calibration plot for Left DIS#1(Fig.11); -> Then update Table 7. From KP: For RES#7 and #7b, need to check if there was any solid target data (carbon hole, BeO, Al dummy etc), to improve the optics uncertainty. - update near X'mas, we do not seem to have taken any solid target data here. Fine, just keep the large uncertainty then. ---------------------- in Section 3.7, DW/som_q2.tex ---------------------- From DW: need comparison table (HAMC vs. data) of Q2 and x for DIS (in Table 8). - The agreement between these values should be consistent with the error quoted for Q2, from optics. So we still need to quote these numbers. Missing data Q2 and x for DIS. ---------------------- in Section 3.8, XZ/som_allbg.tex ---------------------- From KP: need corrected contamination analysis for electrons in pion triggers -> Both NIM and SOM Table 9; Update 2013/Jan: DIS is done but need these for resonances, see below. From XZ: The above item will affect the pion asymmetry results, which further affects the positron background analysis and corrections to the electron asymmetry. (Note to self: this is done in my spreadsheet AsymResults.xls). From KP: Also need all contamination analysis for RES -> Table 10; From XZ: Once get Q2 and W from DW on DIS1 and 2 (HAMC values), will update Table 13; XZ/DW: double check AT on the right HRS was done at Q2=1.907 (Table 14); RM/XZ: Need to use duality for the Al endcap evaluation, so the point that our measured RES asymmetries agree with DIS formula within their stat uncertainties must be made somewhere prior. ---------------------- in Section 3.9, DW/som_radcor.tex ---------------------- From DW: What is the form factor used in the e-p and e-n elastic (part of the quasi-elastic) asymmetry evaluation (line 847-851)? - These are from the HAPPEX code, need to check references! From XZ: need reference for NMC fit of $F_2$ (near line 856). From DW: Need radiative corrections for resonances -> Table 16. Update 2013/Jan: preliminary numbers are available but need fine interpolation to extract A(,) from theory tables. Table 15: Applied all preliminary corrections here (note: RC needs to be updated, see above). Need to re-evaluate error of fRC in Table 16 (DIS should shrink). RC for resonances: How to evaluate error? Note that if table is good to 20%, it would cancel in the RC ratio since A(,) is now from table not DIS. -------------------------------------------------------- Resonance questions: ----------------------------------------------------- Now RES#3 is 3 sigma away! 1) check if A(,) from the table is consistent with the values theorists just sent us. Answer: from asym.ps from Lee (see log 2013/1/10), the value of A at W=1.263 is about -94ppm, agree with DW's number. 2) The large value of RC for RES3 is not only due to being close to QE, but also the APV structure near Delta: If APV is peaked at 1.232 and drops off when it's away from 1.232, then it would appear as if fRC is large, since our average is right on the peak.