\relax 
\citation{PR08-011,Subedi:spin2008}
\newlabel{0}{{a}{1}}
\newlabel{1}{{b}{1}}
\newlabel{2}{{c}{1}}
\newlabel{3}{{d}{1}}
\newlabel{4}{{e}{1}}
\newlabel{cor}{{\hbox {$\ast $}\relax }{1}}
\global\@namedef{n@author@}{9}
\global\@namedef{n@collab@}{0}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}}
\newlabel{sec:intro}{{1}{1}}
\citation{Prescott:1978tm,Prescott:1979dh}
\citation{Alcorn:2004sb}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}DAQ Overview}{3}}
\newlabel{sec:overview}{{2}{3}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Grouping scheme (side-view) for the double-layered lead glass counters for the Left and the Right HRS. Scattered particles enter the detector from the left. The colored vertical bars represent the range of each group. }}{5}}
\newlabel{fig:grouping}{{1}{5}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Electronics diagram for the Right HRS DAQ used by the PVDIS experiment. The Sum8's, discriminators and logic modules for two groups are shown, as well as the location of tagger signal inputs, setup of the VETO circuit using scintillator and gas cherenkov signals, the logic units for combining triggers from all eight groups into final triggers, and the scalers. Electronics for the Left HRS are similar except for the grouping scheme. }}{6}}
\newlabel{fig:daqflowchart}{{2}{6}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}DAQ PID performance}{7}}
\newlabel{sec:pid}{{3}{7}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Preshower vs. Shower ADC spectrum (sum of 8 blocks each) for group 2 on the Left HRS, without fbTDC cut (left) and with cut on the group 2 electron wide trigger fbTDC signal (right). It clearly shows the hardware cuts on the preshower and the total shower signals, indicating the DAQ is selecting the correct events as electrons. The cuts can be adjusted by changing the discriminator thresholds. The events near the vertical axis, around ADC channels (200,1000), are electrons that deposited energy in overlapping blocks between group 2 and group 1 (or group 3) and are recorded by the other group. }}{7}}
\newlabel{fig:showerspectrum}{{3}{7}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Electron detection efficiency (left) and pion rejection factor (right) vs. vertical (dispersive) hit position of the particle in the preshower detector for the narrow electron triggers in the Left HRS. A one-hour run was used in this evaluation. For electron efficiencies, the total efficiency is shown by the red curve, while blue shaded area indicates events that are recorded by the two adjacent groups. The average electron efficiency across the detector for this one-hour run is $(94.626\pm 0.002)\%$ and the averge pion rejection factor is $75.3\pm 1.1$. The error bars are statistical only. PID performance for the wide path and the Right HRS are similar. }}{8}}
\newlabel{fig:pidLeft}{{4}{8}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}DAQ Deadtime Study}{8}}
\newlabel{sec:deadtime}{{4}{8}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.0.1}Group Deadtime Measurement}{9}}
\newlabel{sec:deadtime_group}{{4.0.1}{9}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.0.2}Total Deadtime Evaluation}{10}}
\newlabel{sec:deadtime_final}{{4.0.2}{10}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Top: schematic diagram for the tagger setup and signal timing sequence. Bottom: fbTDC spectrum for the relative timing between tagger-trigger coincidence and the input tagger, in 0.5\nobreakspace  {}ns. The fbTDC module works in the multi-hit mode. Two different scenarios are shown: 1) Main peak $I_0$: when there is no PMT signal preceding the tagger, the tagger triggers the DAQ and forms a tagger-trigger coincidence. 2) Pileup events $I_1$ and $I_2$: when there is a PMT signal preceding the tagger by a time interval shorter than the delayed tagger width, the PMT signal triggers the DAQ and forms a tagger-trigger coincidence signal with the delayed tagger. }}{11}}
\newlabel{fig:tagger}{{5}{11}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Deadtime loss in percent vs. event rate from the tagger method for group 3 on the Left HRS. Left: actual deadtime loss from tagger measurements; Right: simulated deadtime loss of the tagger. The tagger count loss (blue) and the pileup correction (green) are shown separately. Results of the linear fit ($p_1$) shows the measured or simulated group deadtime in seconds. These data were taken (or simulated) at a $Q^2$ of 1.9\nobreakspace  {}(GeV/$c$)$^2$. Group 3 is from the central blocks of the lead-glass counter and has the highest rate among all groups.}}{12}}
\newlabel{fig:dtplot_tagger_l}{{6}{12}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {7}{\ignorespaces Deadtime loss in percent vs. event rate from the tagger method for group 4 on the Right HRS. Left: tagger data; Right: simulation. These data were taken (or simulated) at a $Q^2$ of 1.9\nobreakspace  {}(GeV/$c$)$^2$. Group 4 is from the central blocks of the lead-glass counter and has the highest rate among all groups. See Fig.\nobreakspace  {}6\hbox {} caption for details.}}{12}}
\newlabel{fig:dtplot_tagger_r}{{7}{12}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.1}Asymmetries}{12}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {8}{\ignorespaces Simulated deadtime loss of the global electron trigger for the left (left) and the right (right) HRS. Results of the linear fit ($p_1$) is the simulated total deadtime in seconds.}}{13}}
\newlabel{fig:hats_dtoverall}{{8}{13}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {9}{\ignorespaces Blinded counting asymmetry in ppm for the global electron narrow trigger for $Q^2=1.1$ and $Q^2=1.9$\nobreakspace  {}(GeV/c)$^2$. Data for $Q^2=1.1$\nobreakspace  {}(GeV/c)$^2$ were collected only on the Left HRS and the whole data set is shown. Data for $Q^2=1.9$\nobreakspace  {}(GeV/c)$^2$ were taken on both Left and Right HRSs and only the Right HRS data set is shown, which accounts for about 80\% of the total statistics. }}{13}}
\newlabel{fig:asym}{{9}{13}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.2}Conclusion}{13}}
\bibcite{PR08-011}{1}
\bibcite{Subedi:spin2008}{2}
\bibcite{Alcorn:2004sb}{3}
\bibcite{Bosted:E149}{4}
\bibcite{Prescott:1978tm}{5}
\bibcite{Prescott:1979dh}{6}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{References}{14}}
\global\c@lastpage=14