(Neutron spin structure functions from RSS data)

Packing Fractions and Dilution Factors

General Information

Latest proton DFs: Feb 02, 2006
Latest deuteron DFs: Dec 11, 2006
History of RSS Dilution Factors (updated in Dec 2006).

Status and results (Dec. 18, 2007)

Study of deuteron DF Systematics uncertainty due to the nucleon model (updated from oct 30, 2007)

Found that the results posted on oct30, 2007 were incorrect because the MC used to get those results was a TEST MC that was used to get the results for the DF systematics due to deuteron model. (In this version, values from Peter's deuteron models were increased by several %. see my jul03,2007 report for details.) Apparently, I forgot to change the source code back to the 'regular' version. Because of this, I needed to redo my DF systematic calculations originally posted on oct30,2007. Note that the procedures are the same, but the numbers are different.

<>We used similar procedures for the proton systematics (feb16, 2006) to get the deuteron systematics uncertainty due to nucleon model (A>2). The scalein value of 1.04 (0.96) for high P (low P) run was used, and the DFs were calculated. I assumed that the avg PFs for this case would be almost unchanged, as we saw for the proton case (see dec20, 2005), so I did not calculate the new PFs this time. The ratio of new DF to the original (scalein=1.0) is calculated. The avg ratio for high P (low W) for W>1100 is 1.022 +/- 0.002 while for low P (high W) it is 1.030 +/- 0.002. The weighted average of the two is 1.027 +/- 0.001, so the systematics uncertainty is 2.7%.

Like the proton results on feb16, 2006, the syst uncertaintainties for low P and high P given above are close to each other.

overall deuteron DF systematics (updated from Sep.25 result)

Using the above systematic uncertainty of 2.7% due to A>2 nucleon model, the total deuteron DF systematic uncertainty is calculated. It is given by

delta_df = sqrt[(A*(delta_deuteron/deuteron))^2 + (B*(delta_nuclear/nuclear))^2 + (C*(delta_pf/pf))^2),
where A, B, and C are the scaling factors.

Deuteron model: Found that the relative DF systematic uncertainty due to deuteron model is 2.6% or less (Jul 03, 2007). A=1.0
Nuclear model: 4.0% change in the nuclear model (A>2) (=delta_nuclear/nuclear) yields 2.7% change in DF. B=0.675.
PF: Found that delta_pf/pf= ~8.2% (Sep25,2007). According to my Jul25,2005 report, 2.4% relative change in PF leads to 1.0% relative change in DF for deuteron target. Therefore, C is estimated to be C=1.0/2.4=0.417. The result is given below:

delta_df= sqrt[(2.6%)^2 + (2.7%)^2 + (0.417*8.2%)^2]= 5.07%

In addition, we can add other systematics due to run selection (0.5%, Jul25,2005) and PF extraction methods (0.4% Aug16,2005). The total DF systematics then becomes 5.11%.

Status and results (Oct. 30, 2007) --- Incorrect results: See Dec18, 2007 above

Study of deuteron DF Systematics uncertainty due to the nucleon model (preliminary)

We used similar procedures for the proton systematics (feb16, 2006) to get the deuteron systematics uncertainty due to nucleon model (A>2). The scalein value of 1.04 (0.96) for high P (low P) runs was used, and the DFs were calculated. I assumed that the avg PFs for this case would be almost unchanged, as we saw for the proton case (see dec20, 2005), so I did not calculate the new PFs this time. The ratio of new DF to the original (scalein=1.0) is calculated. The avg ratio for high P (low W) is 1.0090 +/- 0.0021 while for low P (high W) it is 1.0620 +/- 0.0017. The weighted average of the two is 1.041 +/- 0.0013, so the systematics uncertainty is 4.1%.

Unlike the proton results on feb16, 2006, the errors for low P and high P are not close. ~~I feel I need to re-calculate the new PFs and do this study again.~~

overall deuteron DF systematics (updated from Sep.25 result)

[Update following the meeting on oct 30] Using the above systematic uncertainty of 4.1% due to A>2 nucleon model, the total deuteron DF systematic uncertainty is calculated. It is given by

delta_df = sqrt[(A*(delta_deuteron/deuteron))^2 + (B*(delta_nuclear/nuclear))^2 + (C*(delta_pf/pf))^2),
where A, B, and C are the scaling factors.

Deuteron model: Found that the relative DF systematic uncertainty due to deuteron model is 2.6% or less (Jul 03, 2007). A=1.0
Nuclear model: 4.0% change in the nuclear model (A>2) (=delta_nuclear/nuclear) yields 4.1% change in DF. B=1.025.
PF: Found that delta_pf/pf= ~8.2% (Sep25,2007). According to my Jul25,2005 report, 2.4% relative change in PF leads to 1.0% relative change in DF for deuteron target. Therefore, C is estimated to be C=1.0/2.4=0.417. The result is given below:

delta_df= sqrt[(2.6%)^2 + (4.1%)^2 + (0.417*8.2%)^2]= 5.94%

In addition, we can add other systematics due to run selection (0.5%, Jul25,2005) and PF extraction methods (0.4% Aug16,2005). The total DF systematics then becomes 5.97%.

Status and results (Sep. 25, 2007)

Study of deuteron DF Systematics uncertainties

Using the latest hbook files for PF results posted on Nov 01, 2006, the following table is generated for ND3-para-top configs. This corresponds to Table 1 of Oscar's PF/DF technote . note that Y = m pf* + b = m' pf*' + b', where m' and b' are scaled by carbon data/MC ratio, S, such that m'=S m and b'=S b.

A systematic uncertainty due to S is given by d(pf*')= -Y/m' dS/S (eq 14 of tech note). Assuming dS/S = 0.05 as for the proton systematics calculation (Feb09, 2006), d(pf*') can be determined.

Table 5: Integrated W yields for ND3-para-top (Scalein=1.0 )

S
(C.target
Data/MC)
Y
(Data)
Y_MC
(PF=50%)
Unscaled

Y_MC

(PF=60%)
Unscaled

m
(slope)
b
(intercept)
pf*
m'
(=S m)
b'
(=S b)
pf*'
d(pf*')

(due to S)
d(pf*')/pf*

(Rel.error)

High
pHMS
1.110
139.8
118.8
132.9
141.0
48.3
0.649
156.5
53.6
0.550
-0.0446
-8.11 %

Low
pHMS
1.075
269.8
239.7
268.1
284.0
97.7
0.606
305.3
105.0
0.540
-0.0441
-8.17 %

overall deuteron DF systematics (preliminary)

DF systematics can be calculated as

      delta_df = sqrt[(A*(delta_deuteron/deuteron))^2 + (B*(delta_nuclear/nuclear))^2 + (C*(delta_pf/pf))^2),

      where A, B, and C are the scaling factors.

Deuteron model: Found that the relative DF systematic uncertainty due to deuteron model is 2.6% or less (Jul 03, 2007). A=1.0
Nuclear model: 4% change in the nuclear model (A>2) yields ??? % change in DF. (in progress)
PF: Found that delta_pf/pf= ~8.2% (Sep25,2007). According to my Jul25,2005 report, 2.4% relative change in PF leads to 1.0% relative change in DF for deuteron target. Therefore, C is estimated to be C=1.0/2.4=0.417

(If we can assume deuteron DF systematics due to nuclear model is 3%, delta_df= sqrt[(2.6%)^2 + (3%)^2 + (0.417*8.2%)^2]= 5.2% (the same value as proton DF systematics)

In addition, we could also add other relative systematics uncertainties due to run selection (0.5%, Jul25,2005)and PF extraction methods (0.4% Aug16,2005). If we do so, the total DF systematics would increase by ~+0.1%.

Status and results (Jul. 03, 2007)

Study of DF Systematics uncertainty on deuteron model

Accroding to Peter (see his email on Jun07,2007), the deuteron uncertainty at Q2=1.3 for inelastic (Quasi-elastic) region is 3-4% (5%). To study the systematic effect on the deuteron cross section, the deuteron cross section is increased by 4% (inelastic) and 5%(quasi-elastic) and see how much DF changes. First, we obtained the PF for each target/momentum config. It became smaller by 0.6-1.0% because the cross section is increased. (Carbon rus are not affected by these changes so the Carbon Data/MC ratios remain the same as before.)

Table 1: ND3, TOP (modified Peter's model using F1F2IN06_rss.f and RSS ressf.f. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	C(no He) Run#	Carbon Ratio (Data/MC)	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	AVG PF	PF increase
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	1.110+/-0.005	54.16+/-0.23	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Targ ,PF	53.6+/-0.15	-0.9%
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	1.075+/-0.004	53.18+/-0.20	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Targ ,PF	53.6+/-0.15	-0.9%
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	---	not obtained	(1.2,1.5)	---	----	---
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	---	not obtained	(1.5,1.8)	---	----	---

Table 2: ND3, Bot (modified Peter's model using F1F2IN06_rss.f and RSS ressf.f. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
Carbon Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF
increase

ND3 (43895)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43887
1.110+/-0.005
57.59+/-0.26
(1.2,1.5) W ,Targ ,PF
55.2+/-0.16

-0.6%

ND3 (43939) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.075+/-0.004 53.82+/-0.20 (1.5,1.8) W ,Targ ,PF

ND3 (43520)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43536
1.107+/-0.005 59.48+/-0.34 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Targ ,PF
60.0+/-0.23

-1.0%

ND3 (43550)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43547
1.063+/-0.004 60.48+/-0.31 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Targ ,PF

Using these PFs, new sets of DFs are obtained. Calculated the ratio of new DFs to the original DFs (dec11,2006) and take the average ratio for W>1100. The new PF became smaller by~1% but we increased the deuteron xsec by several percent. Therefore, the new DFs become larger by a few %. The ratios are 1.024+-0.001 (para-top), 1.028+-0.001 (para-bot),1.025+-0.001 (perp-bot). Taking the avg of the 'para' results, we have the ratios of 1.026(para) and 1.025(perp). That means DF uncertainty due to deuteron model is 2.6% for para and 2.5% for perp.

Status and results (Dec. 11, 2006)

Deuteron DFs using Peter's models

Three sets of deuteron models were tested recently (see Nov01, Nov13, Nov27 below) and they were compared to data. At the last meeting, we decided to use the Peter's deuteron models (Q.E. and inelastic) to get the DFs. QFS is still used for A>2. The christy806 routine is used to obtain R.

Results of deuteron DFs using Peter's models are given below. The AVG PFs obtained on Nov01 were used in the MC. The 1st and 2nd resonances are slightly clearer than before but the 3rd resonance is still not clear. Compared to the previous results(Mar02,'06) where the Hallc2h+yscaling were used for the deuteron, the DFs became smaller than the previous results even though the new PFs increased by 2-3%. I believe that's because Peter's models give smaller deuteron cross section but the decrease in the cross section is not fully canceled by the PF increase. The relative MAX difference between the new and previous DFs for hi-para is 21% at W=1100 MeV. Similarly, the relative difference at W=1235 is 9%.

DFs obtained from the indivisual HighP and LowP MC runs agree better than the previous (Mar02) results.

Table 1: ND3 Dilution Factors (Ver. Dec.11, 2006) -- Using Peter's models, scalein=1.0, AVG PFs

Target	Field	T/B	Avg PF(%)(Nov01 '06)	DF Results	Comments
ND3	Para	Top	54.5+/-0.2	Data, Plot,	Comparison of hi and lo DFs ,
ND3	Perp	Top	TBA	TBA
ND3	Para	Bot	55.8+/-0.2	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Bot	61.0+/-0.3	Data, Plot	Comparison of hi and lo DFs

Status and results (Nov. 27, 2006)

Comparison of data and MC (Peter's model with RSS ressf.f) (Follow up)

[The following text posted on Nov.13. Re-posted here for convenience] We want to check if the Peter's inelastic model(F1F2in06.f) with the ressf routine used in our RSS MC might work.The Christy806 routine called from the pind routine is replaced with the ressf_2.f so that we can see how the cross section depends on the choice of 'R'. Here is a plot of the deuteron cross section using this modified model. This plot shows the comparison of the fermi-smeared R from the christy806 and ressf.f routines.

The table below shows the PFs and model comparisons. Compared to the Mar02 results where our y-scaling and hallc2h.f routines are used, the AVG PFs increased by 2-3 %. If compared with the Nov01 results where peter's original models are used, the avg PFs become smaller by less than 1%.

This table also has the data-model comparison plots which can be compared with the Nov01 results where peter's original routines are used without modifications. Note that the differeces between those two results are due to the choice of R and avg PF values. We can say that the those two results are basically quite similar even though the R models are different.

Table 1: ND3, TOP (modified Peter's model using F1F2IN06_rss.f and RSS ressf.f. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	C(no He) Run#	Carbon Ratio (Data/MC)	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	AVG PF	PF increase	Data-MC Comparison
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	1.110+/-0.005	54.44+/-0.23	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Targ ,PF	54.0+/-0.15	+2.3%	Data vs MC (using avg PF)
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	1.075+/-0.004	53.76+/-0.19	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Targ ,PF	54.0+/-0.15	+2.3%	Data vs MC (using avg PF)
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	---	not obtained	(1.2,1.5)	---	----	---
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	---	not obtained	(1.5,1.8)	---	----	---

Table 2: ND3, Bot (modified Peter's model using F1F2IN06_rss.f and RSS ressf.f. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
Carbon Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF
increase
Data-MC
Comparison

ND3 (43895)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43887
1.110+/-0.005
57.89+/-0.27
(1.2,1.5) W ,Targ ,PF
55.6+/-0.16

+2.0%
Data vs MC
(using avg PF)

ND3 (43939) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.075+/-0.004 54.42+/-0.19 (1.5,1.8) W ,Targ ,PF

ND3 (43520)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43536
1.107+/-0.005 59.79+/-0.36 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Targ ,PF
60.5+/-0.25

+2.6%
Data vs MC
(using avg PF)

ND3 (43550)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43547
1.063+/-0.004 61.17+/-0.34 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Targ ,PF

Status and results (Nov. 13, 2006)

Comparison of data and MC (Peter's model with RSS ressf.f)

We want to check if the Peter's inelastic model(F1F2in06.f) with the ressf routine used in our RSS MC might work.The Christy806 routine called from the pind routine is replaced with the ressf_2.f so that we can see how the cross section depends on the choice of 'R'. Here is a plot of the deuteron cross section using this modified model. This plot shows the comparison of the fermi-smeared R from the christy806 and ressf.f routines.

Comparison of data and MC (hallc2h.f with wpi=1.038)

Oscar said that the deuteron cross section using hallc2h.f with wpi=1.038 shows better agreement with the data than with wpi=0.982 that we've been using in the MC. I changed wpi to 1.038 and ran the MC to check. The y-scaling routine has not been changed. This plot shows the cross section using this modified model. The results of the data-model comparison for this model are given below. The 'PF increase' column shows how much the avg PF increased from the Mar02 results using wpi=0.982. The increase in the PF is about 0.5%. The results of the data-model comparison (the last column) are basically the same as the Oct09 results using wpi=0.982.

Table 1: ND3, TOP (using Hallc2h.f with Wpi=1.038. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	C(no He) Run#	Carbon Ratio (Data/MC)	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	AVG PF	PF increase	Data-MC Comparison
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	1.110+/-0.005	52.7+/-0.24	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Targ ,PF	52.3+/-0.16	+0.6%	Data vs MC (using avg PF)
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	1.075+/-0.004	52.0+/-0.21	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Targ ,PF	52.3+/-0.16	+0.6%	Data vs MC (using avg PF)
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	---	not obtained	(1.2,1.5)	---	----	---
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	---	not obtained	(1.5,1.8)	---	----	---

Table 2: ND3, Bot (using Hallc2h.f with Wpi=1.038. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
Carbon Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF
increase
Data-MC
Comparison

ND3 (43895)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43887
1.110+/-0.005
55.9+/-0.22
(1.2,1.5) W ,Targ ,PF
54.1+/-0.15

+0.5%
Data vs MC
(using avg PF)

ND3 (43939) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.075+/-0.004 52.7+/-0.20 (1.5,1.8) W ,Targ ,PF

ND3 (43520)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43536
1.107+/-0.005 57.7+/-0.27 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Targ ,PF
58.5+/-0.19

+0.6%
Data vs MC
(using avg PF)

ND3 (43550)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43547
1.063+/-0.004 59.3+/-0.27 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Targ ,PF

Status and results (Nov. 01, 2006)

Comparison of deuteron data and MC using Peter's models

Thanks to Peter, we now have his deuteron QE and inelastic routines. The plot of deuteron cross sections at thetae=13.15 deg(fixed) shows that the peter's models are basically below our current models(Y-scaling + Hallc2h routines). [Note: Peter's routines say that the outputs F1 and F2 are per NUCLEUS values, NOT per nucleon.] I ran the MC with his routines to see if they are better than what we have been using. First, we obtained the new PFs, and then reran the MC with the new PFs to make a comparison with the data. The results are given below.

Table 1: ND3, TOP (Peter's QE+inelastic models. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	C(no He) Run#	Carbon Ratio (Data/MC)	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	AVG PF	PF increase	Data-MC Comparison
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	1.110+/-0.005	55.0+/-0.23	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Targ ,PF	54.5+/-0.2	+2.8%	Data vs MC (using avg PF)
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	1.075+/-0.004	54.0+/-0.19	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Targ ,PF	54.5+/-0.2	+2.8%	Data vs MC (using avg PF)
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	---	not obtained	(1.2,1.5)	---	----	---
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	---	not obtained	(1.5,1.8)	---	----	---

Table 2: ND3, Bot (Peter's QE+inelastic models. QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
Carbon Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF
increase
Data-MC
Comparison

ND3 (43895)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43887
1.110+/-0.005
58.5+/-0.29
(1.2,1.5) W ,Targ ,PF
55.8+/-0.2

+2.2%
Data vs MC
(using avg PF)

ND3 (43939) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.075+/-0.004 54.6+/-0.19 (1.5,1.8) W ,Targ ,PF

ND3 (43520)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43536
1.107+/-0.005 60.4+/-0.39 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Targ ,PF
61.0+/-0.3

+3.1%
Data vs MC
(using avg PF)

ND3 (43550)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43547
1.063+/-0.004 61.4+/-0.35 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Targ ,PF

Note that I still use QFS for A>2 because the agreement with the data is good. So, the carbon ratios as well as the carbon 'W' and 'target' plots in the above tables are the same as those on Mar02, 2006. (In other words, only the RED numbers are the new results.) The AVG PFs increased by 2-3% compared to the Mar02 results where our current models were used. That was because the peter's models are lower than our current models as mentioned above.

The data-MC compasison plots in the last column can be compared with those deuteron plots posted on Oct 09, 2006 below. For para, the Peter's models are better than our current models especially for W<1.2GeV. For W>1.2GeV, both results look similar by eye. For perp, our current models look silightly better than the Peter's models.

Status and results (Oct. 09, 2006)

Comparison of data and MC (Proton, Deuteron)

Here are the updated plots of yields showing the comparison between the proton from MC vs "data-MC(no proton)", and similarly for the deuteron. The avg of the PFs from the low and high P runs was used in each case. In the overlap region of W (W~1.5 GeV), MC yield is larger than the data which cause a dip around that W region in the ratio plot. If we look at an individual high P (low P) data with the MC, we found that the MC yield is larger than the data for W>1.5 (W<1.5). Therefore, the disagreement at W~1.5 is enhanced when high and low P runs are combined.

NOTE: The previous study was posted on Dec.15, 2005.

Table 1: Comparison of data and MC:

	Field	T/B	AVG of Lo-P & Hi-P PFs	Comparison of data and MC	Models used
Proton	para	top	53.2% (Feb 02, 2006)	MC(proton) vs Data-MC(no P)	Proton: Eric's (7/22/2005) inelastic models
Proton	perp	top	57.2% (Feb 02, 2006)	MC(proton) vs Data-MC(no P)	Proton: Eric's (7/22/2005) inelastic models
Deuteron	para	top	51.7% (Mar 02, 2006)	MC(deuteron) vs Data-MC(no D)	Deuteron: Y-scaling (QE) and Hallc (inelastic) models
Deuteron	perp	bot	57.9% (Mar 02, 2006)	MC(deuteron) vs Data-MC(no D)	Deuteron: Y-scaling (QE) and Hallc (inelastic) models

Note: Due to the changes made by the Computer center this summer, I had to change the batch script for submitting jobs slightly. The following changes were made to the submit_replay script I have. Add 'TRACK: analysis' and 'PROJECT: e01006'. Comment out or remove the 'QUEUE' line. Below are the lines from the updated script.

# echo 'QUEUE: production'   >> bat_files/jsub_file_$nrun
   echo 'TRACK: ANALYSIS'     >> bat_files/jsub_file_$nrun
   echo 'PROJECT: e01006'     >> bat_files/jsub_file_$nrun

Status and results (Mar. 02, 2006)

Deuteron PFs and Dilution factors

Because QFS was modified last Dec, the deuteron PFs and DFs are updated. Compared to the previous sets of ND3 PFs (Jul08), the PFs became smaller by about 1.5%. I also tried calculating PFs for perp-top without any cuts on target raster positions, and the PFs became smaller by ~2%. I will apply cuts and determine the PFs for these cases.

Table 1: ND3, TOP (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	C(no He) Run#	C. Ratio (Data/MC)	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	AVG PF	PF difference (Hi P- LowP)
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	1.110+/-0.005	51.9+/-0.25	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Targ ,PF	51.7+/-0.2	0.3%
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	1.075+/-0.004	51.6+/-0.21	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Targ ,PF	51.7+/-0.2	0.3%
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	1.094+/-0.005	(60.5+/-0.42)TBA	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Targ ,PF	(62.2+/-0.3) TBA
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	1.063+/-0.004	(64.2+/-0.46)TBA	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Targ ,PF	(62.2+/-0.3) TBA

Table 2: ND3, Bot (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

ND3 (43895)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43887
1.110+/-0.005
55.1+/-0.22
(1.2,1.5) W ,Targ ,PF 53.6+/-0.2 2.8%

ND3 (43939) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.075+/-0.004 52.3+/-0.21 (1.5,1.8) W ,Targ ,PF

ND3 (43520)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43536
1.107+/-0.005 56.9+/-0.25 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Targ ,PF 57.9+/-0.2 -2.0%

ND3 (43550)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43547
1.063+/-0.004 58.9+/-0.25 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Targ ,PF

Like the NH3 DF calculation, the AVG of the PFs from low-P and high-P runs is used in the DF calculation. Good agreement for lower W compared to the previous DF data, but up to 7% change at higher W.

Table 3: ND3 Dilution Factors (Ver. Mar02) -- Using QFS(A>2), scalein=1.0, AVG PFs

Target	Field	T/B	AVG PF(%)	Results	Comments
ND3	Para	Top	51.7+/-0.2	Data, Plot,	Comparison of hi and lo DFs ,
ND3	Perp	Top	TBA	TBA
ND3	Para	Bot	53.6+/-0.2	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Bot	57.9+/-0.3	Data, Plot	Comparison of hi and lo DFs

Status and results (Feb. 16, 2006)

Updated proton DF systematics

Some of the systematic errors in DF are updated. The updated nuclear model uncertainty by Oscar is 4%, and the PF uncertainty is 1.77*5% (Feb 15). Eric confirmed (Feb15) that the proton model systematic from the E94-110 data set is 3%. Therefore, the delta_df in eq.[2] of my Feb09 report becomes

delta_df = sqrt[(0.64*3%)^2 + (0.73*4%)^2 + (0.37*1.77*5%)^2 = 4.8%

Relative systematics uncertainty due to run selection is 0.8%(unchanged) (jul25). Relative systematics due to PF extraction is 0.5% (average of para and perp results)(aug16). The total systematics including these is delta_df = 4.9%.

Status and results (Feb. 09, 2006)

Update on the DF systematics from the nuclear model (Follow up on the Jan26 results)

I recalculated the DF systematics by comparing the DFs with scalein=1.0 and with scalein=1.04,0.96. But this time, I compared the high-p runs and low-p runs saparately, and made a weighted-average of the two. The systematics errors for W>1100 are 2.4+-0.3% for high-p runs, and 3.3+-0.3% for low-p runs. The average of the two is 2.9+-0.2%. In summary, the 4% change in nuclear model would yield 2.9% change in DF.

Summary of the proton DF systematics

DF systematics can be calculated as

      delta_df = sqrt[(A*(delta_proton/proton))^2 + (B*(delta_nuclear/nuclear))^2 + (C*(delta_pf/pf))^2),

      where A, B, and C are the ratios of the changes in DF due to proton model, nuclear model, and PF:

A: 10% change in the proton model yields 6.4% change in DF. A=6.4/10 = 0.64. (Dec 01)
B: 4% change in the nuclear model yields 2.9% change in DF. B=2.9/ 4 = 0.73. (Feb 09)
C: On Jul 25, I reported that the "2.5% change in PF leads to 1.7% change in DF". But the 2.5% change was just the difference between two PFs. Therefore, my statement means "2.5% ABSOLUTE change in PF (or 4.5% RELATIVE change in PF) leads to 1.7% RELATIVE change in DF". Therefore, the factor C=1.7%/4.5% = 0.37. delta_pf/pf can be calculated from eq. (14) of Oscar's PF tech note. Using the values for scalein=1.0 from Table 1 of the tech note and also assuming dS/S=5%, delta_pf/pf = -8.5%.

Assuming proton model and nuclear model have uncertainties 3% and 5% respectively,

delta_df = sqrt[(0.64*3%)^2 + (0.73*5%)^2 + (0.37*8.5%)^2 = 5.2%

In addition, we could also add other systematics (~1%) due to run selection and PF extraction methods as summarized in table 1 of my Dec 1 report. If we do so, the total systematics is 5.3%.

Plan to write a more 'formal' report summarizing the total DF systematics.

Status and results (Feb. 02, 2006)

New proton PFs & DFs

QFS was updated by Oscar and Mark this week. (sig0 in qfs routine 'sigx' gets multiplied by 0.92 : sig0=100.d-4*.92 )

Almost no change in PFs for hi p runs, ~0.4% change for low p runs. The C ratio (=Data/MC) for low p run became larger by about 2.5% because the DIS component of QFS became smaller.

The AVG PFs became smaller by ~0.2% than the previous PFs (12/22).

Table 1: NH3, TOP (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	C(no He) Run#	C. Ratio (Data/MC)	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	AVG PF	PF difference (Hi P- LowP)
NH3 (43724)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43774	1.126+/-0.005	55.0+/-0.2	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	53.2+/-0.2	3.9%
NH3 (43740)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	1.075+/-0.003	51.1+/-0.3	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	53.2+/-0.2	3.9%
NH3 (43261)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43284	1.101+/-0.006	57.0+/-0.3	(1.2,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	57.2+/-0.2	-0.4%
NH3 (43369)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43361	1.078+/-0.004	57.4+/-0.3	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	57.2+/-0.2	-0.4%

Table 2: NH3, Bot (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
1.126+/-0.005
57.1+/-0.3
(1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF 54.2+/-0.2 5.2%

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.075+/-0.003 51.9+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
1.101+/-0.006 60.4+/-0.4 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF 60.0+/-0.3 0.8%

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
1.078+/-0.004 59.6+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

Table 3: NH3 Dilution Factors (Ver. Feb02) -- Using Eric's model(7/22), QFS(A>2), scalein=1.0, AVG PFs(02/02)

Target	Field	T/B	AVG PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	53.2+/-0.2	Data, Plot,	Comparison of hi and lo DFs ,
NH3	Perp	Top	57.2+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	54.2+/-0.2	Data, Plot	Comparison of hi and lo DFs ,
NH3	Perp	Bot	60.0+/-0.3	Data, Plot

The change in DF compared to the previous (12/22) version is quite small (<1%) for W<1700, and about 3% for high W (w>1800). As usual, DFs for W<1100 have been replaced with those obtained from elastic data.

Status and results (Jan. 26, 2006)

Systematics uncertainty in Dilution Factors due to Scalein values

Proton DFs were calculated using the MC with scalein=1.04(high P) and 0.96(low P). As we found out on Dec20, the average PFs for this case were almost identical to those with scalein=1.0 (see Tables on the Dec20 report below). The ratio of DFs were obtained and the difference from 1.0 gives the estimate of the systematic uncertainty. The ratio plots for Top-para , Top-perp show that the avg difference for w>1100 is 2.0%. The absolute values of the ratio were used to calculate the average deviation which gives the estimate of the systematic error. For high P (low W), the DFs calculated with scalein=1.04 become smaller because the A>2 cross section was increased. That results in the ratio value smaller than 1.0. Similarly for low P (high W), the DF becomes larger because of smaller A>2 cross section due to scalein=0.96, and the ratio becomes larger than 1.0. The systematic uncertainty in DFs due to the A>2 cross section (QFS) is estimated to be 1.0% for both para and perp.

Status and results (Dec. 22, 2005)

NH3 Dilution Factors obtained using the latest MC

Using the AVG PFs given in Tables 1 and 2 from the Dec20 report, new NH3 DFs were calculated. As before, the DFs for W<1100 MeV in the data files have been replaced with those from the elastic data. We still see good agreement at W=1100 MeV where the two DF sets meet (red and black points in the plots).

Table 1: NH3 Dilution Factors (Ver. Dec22) -- Using Eric's model(7/22), QFS(A>2), scalein=1.0, AVG PFs(12/20)

Target	Field	T/B	AVG PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	53.4+/-0.2	Data, Plot,
NH3	Perp	Top	57.5+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	54.3+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Bot	60.2+/-0.3	Data, Plot

Status and results (Dec. 20, 2005)

NH3 Packing Fractions obtained using the latest MC

Mark found and fixed a bug in mc_hms_single.f on Dec16. We ran the updated MC using scalein=1.0 like we did last week (Dec09). The PFs with QFS for A>2 are given in Tables 1 and 2. The PFs using Peter's model for A>2 were also obtained but not shown.

Table 1: NH3, TOP (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC) PF(%)
W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P- LowP)

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
1.119+/-0.005 55.1+/-0.2 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF 53.4+/-0.2
3.6%

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 1.049+/-0.003
51.5+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
1.094+/-0.006
57.1+/-0.3 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF 57.5+/-0.2
-0.7%

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
1.051+/-0.004
57.8+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

Table 2: NH3, Bot (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.0)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
1.119+/-0.005
57.2+/-0.3
(1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF 54.3+/-0.2 4.9%

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.049+/-0.003 52.3+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
1.094+/-0.006 60.5+/-0.4 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF 60.2+/-0.3 0.4%

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
1.051+/-0.004 60.1+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

We also ran the MC with different 'scalein' values. By comparing the Hall-C carbon data with QFS, Oscar estimated that 'scalein' values of 1.04 for hi P runs and 0.96 for low P runs would be better instead of using scalein=1.0, because the carbon data/MC ratio for high P and low P would become similar. So, I used these scalein values and determined the PFs (Tables 3 and 4). The plot of QFS, HallC data, and Peter's model etc is here (made by Oscar). Because the ratio of Carbon data to MC became smaller (larger) for hi P (low P) runs, the PFs became larger(smaller) for hi P (low P) settings than those with scalein=1.0. Consequently, the PF difference between hi P and low P settings always increased by about 1%. But note that the AVG PFs are almost unchanged because the changes in PFs effectively canceled out.

Table 3: NH3, TOP (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.04 for hi P, 0.96 for low P)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC) PF(%)
W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
1.084+/-0.005 55.6+/-0.2 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF 53.4+/-0.2 4.6%

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 1.090+/-0.004
51.0+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
1.060+/-0.005
57.6+/-0.3 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF 57.3+/-0.2 0.4%

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
1.092+/-0.004
57.2+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

Table 4: NH3, Bot (QFS for A>2, scalein: 1.04 for hi P, 0.96 for low P)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
1.084+/-0.005
57.7+/-0.3
(1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF 54.2+/-0.2

6.0%

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.090+/-0.004 51.7+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
1.060+/-0.005 61.0+/-0.5 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF 59.9+/-0.3 1.5%

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
1.092+/-0.004 59.5+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

After the error in MC code was fixed, I noticed that the elastic peak from the MC for hi-perp settings look more like data (hi-perp PF plot). However, for hi-para runs, the elastic peak still disagrees between MC and data.

Before I began this study this week, I noticed that a plot of hsxptari from the MC ntuple has a sharp cut at -110 mrad. That was because an input parameter, lower limit for Phi angle(vertical), was set too small. I changed it from -110 mrad (top plot) to -140 mrad (bottom plot). However, this fix alone does not seem to change overall shape of the plots given in the tables.

The table below shows the integrated W yields for data and MC(PF=50% and 60%) over the given W range. The MC yields are not scaled by the carbon data/MC ratio.

Table 5: Integrated W yields for NH3-para-top

Scalein
C.Ratio
(Data/MC)
Y(Data)
Y_MC
(PF=50%)

Y_MC

(PF=60%)
W Range

High pHMS
1.0
1.119
126.8
107.1
119.3
(1.2,1.5)

Low pHMS
1.0
1.049
236.9
222.2
246.0
(1.5,1.8)

High pHMS
1.04
1.084
126.8
110.0
122.5
(1.2,1.5)

Low pHMS
0.96
1.090
236.9
215.6
238.2
(1.5,1.8)

Status and results (Dec. 15, 2005)

Comparison of data and MC for QFS and Peter's models (NH3 only)

We ran the latest MC on NH3 target with the PFs obtained as of Dec 09 and compared the data with MC for QFS and Peter's models for A>2. The W histograms were created from data and MC for the entire W range (0.7<w<2.0) by combining the hi- and low-momentum runs. The W from the MC with proton only is also comapred with "Data-MC(no proton)". Here, NH3-para-top runs (#43724 for hi momentum and #43740 for low momentum) were used. Eric's 7/22 model was used for proton inelastic cross section.

Table 1: Comparison of data and MC:

	Values for PF (Dec09)	Comparison of W (ALL targets)	Comparison of W (Proton contribution)
QFS (A>2)	54.8% (for low W) and 51.6% (for high W)	W (all targets)	W (proton)
QFS (A>2)	51.6% (all w region)	W (all targets)	W (proton)
Peter's model (A>2)	56.1% (for low W) and 51.9% (for high W)	W (all targets)	W (proton)
Peter's model (A>2)	51.9% (all w region)	W (all targets)	W (proton)

As you see results for Peter's model, there is a bump at around W=1.1 on each ratio plot. Note that the W range of 1.2<W<1.5 (1.5<W<1.8) was used to determine the PFs from the hi-momentum (low-momentum) run, so the bump region is excluded in the PF calculation. In addition, the model strongly deviates from data for W<1.0.

Status and results (Dec. 09, 2005)

Two sets of NH3 Packing Fractions using QFS and Peter's models

The MC program was updated yesterday (new routines for A>2 cross section model by Peter, externals_subroutine.f AND call_pb_ext_subroutine.f, were added. mc_hms_singles.f and Makefile were modified). Ntuple has a new weight variable called 'nrate2' which is used to weight MC events with Peter's model. Two sets of PFs are extracted using QFS and Peter's models for A>2 cross section. The 'scalein' parameter was set to 1.0 for all cases. New PFs as well as plots are given in Tables 1-4.

The PFs using QFS and Peter's models differ by ~1.5% for HI runs and ~0.3% for LOW runs. Note that there is a bump at around W=1.1 on the ratio plots of W(data)/W(MC) for HI-para and HI-perp for Peter's model. Becaus of this, I limit the W range to be from 1.2 to 1.5. (It used to be from 1.1 to 1.5.) If the W range of 1.1 to 1.5 is used instead, the PF using peter's model is decreased by about 1%.

Table 1: NH3, TOP (QFS for A>2)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC) PF(%)
W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
1.119+/-0.005 54.8+/-0.2 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF
53.3+/-0.2
3.2%

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 1.049+/-0.003
51.6+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
1.107+/-0.006
56.2+/-0.3 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF
57.3+/-0.2
-1.8%

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
1.085+/-0.004
58.0+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

Table 2: NH3, Bot (QFS for A>2)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC)
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
1.119+/-0.005
57.0+/-0.3
(1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF
54.3+/-0.2
4.7%

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.049+/-0.003 52.3+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
1.107+/-0.006 59.1+/-0.4 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF
59.5+/-0.2
-0.7%

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
1.085+/-0.004 59.8+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

Table 3: NH3, TOP (Peter's model for A>2)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC) PF(%)
W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
1.171+/-0.006
56.1+/-0.3 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF
53.9+/-0.2
4.2%

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 1.153+/-0.004
51.9+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
1.159+/-0.007
57.7+/-0.4 (1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF
58.0+/-0.2
-1.5%

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
1.200+/-0.006
58.2+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

Table 4: NH3, Bot (Peter's model for A>2)

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
C(no He)
Run#
C. Ratio
(Data/MC) PF(%)

W Range
Plots
AVG PF
PF difference
(Hi P - LowP)

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
1.171+/-0.006 58.3+/-0.3
(1.2,1.5) W ,Target ,PF
54.6+/-0.2
5.7%

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 1.153+/-0.004 52.6+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
1.159+/-0.007 60.5+/-0.4 (1.2,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF
60.2+/-0.3
0.5%

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
1.200+/-0.006 60.0+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF

In the tables above, I added a new column "C. Ratio" that gives the ratio of the Carbon data yield to the MC averaged over a given W range. From Tables 1 and 3, average ratio C(QFS)/C(Peter) for para and perp can be calculated and is summarized in Table 5. These values are higher by about 0.05 (by eye) than those in Figure 2 of the RSS Technote Draft 'The packing fraction and dilution factor in RSS' by Oscar which shows the ratio of QFS to Hall C carbon data at 4.6GeV and 16deg.

Table 5: Average Ratio of C(QFS) to C(peter)

	High pHMS Run	Low pHMS Run	Comments
Para	1.046 (1.2<W<1.5)	1.099 (1.5<W<1.8)
Perp	1.047 (1.2<W<1.5)	1.106 (1.5<W<1.8)

Status and results (Dec. 08, 2005)

Sensitivity of NH3 DFs on Nitrogen Model

Like last week, the value for nitrogen cross section (siginel) in qfs_new13_sub.f was increased by a factor 1.10, and extracted PFs and DFs. Due to this change, the PFs become 47.2% (53.7%) for NH3-para-top (NH3-perp-top), and they are smaller than the original values(see my oct26 report) by 5.3% (5.2%). DFs are extracted using these PFs, and the ratios of new and original DFs are obtained for para and perp. The average ratios for W>1100 MeV are 1.088 (para) and 1.080 (perp), so the DFs increase about 8% when nitrogen cross section is increased by 10%.

Numerical test of formulas for estimating changes in DFs (in progress)

Oscar derived a couple of useful formulas for estimating changes in DFs when cross section or packing fraction is changed. The details of the formulas are here. First, the proton cross section is increased by 10% but using the same (original) PF, and DFs are calculated (plot). Oscar estimates in this case that a ratio of new and original DFs is 1.084 while I found the AVERAGE ratio for W>1100 is 1.074. Note that the elastic cross section, which dominates at low W, is NOT increased and inelastic proton cross section does not exist in the low W region. That's why the ratios for W<1000 are exactly 1.0. Similarly, at high W limit, the inelastic cross section dominates and the ratio at high W (W>1600) is 1.08, which is very close to what Oscar estimated.

Similarly, the PF is increased by 10% and DFs are calculated (plot) and I found the ratio is 1.066.

Agreement between MC and DATA using different PFs

In order to extract DFs, we use for each target/field setting a PF extracted from LOW momentum run. But the LOW and HIGH PFs are not identical, and there is about a few or several % difference. Here we show plots of W from data and MC using 'LOW' and 'HIGH' PFs for the entire W rigion. The PF from my oct26 results is 55.8% (52.5%) for NH3-para-top-HIGH (NH3-para-top-LOW). Here are the plots of W for (1) PF=55.8% for low-W region and PF=52.5% for high-W region (basically agrees),(2) PF=55.8% for all W region(disagrees in high W region), (3) PF=52.5% for all region (disagrees in low W region). Note that the W ranges of 1.1 < W < 1.5 and 1.5< W < 1.8 were used to determine the PFs from the HIGH-momentum and LOW-momentum runs, respectively.

Status and results (Dec. 01, 2005)

Sensitivity of NH3 DFs on Proton Model

As suggested at the meeting last time, PFs and DFs were obtained using the proton cross section being higher by 10% than normal in order to study the sensitvity of DFs on proton model. The inelastic proton cross section variable siginel (obtained from Eric's 7/22 model) for each event is multiplied by 1.10 in qfs_new13_sub.f. The PFs for NH3-Top para and perp were obtained using this modified MC. Due to the change made in the MC, the PFs for both cases became smaller by 1.3% than those from the regular MC (See the results on Oct26).

Table 1: NH3, TOP (PFs Obtained using a special MC. See above)

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	PF increased by: (compared to the 10/26 results)
NH3 (43740)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	51.2+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	-1.3%
NH3 (43369)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43361	57.6+/-0.3	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	-1.3%

Using the PFs obtained above, the DFs are calculated using the same special MC. The ratio of new DF (DF1) and original value obtained on 10/26 (DF2) is calculated for each W bin, and the average ratio value for W >1100MeV is calculated. As you see, the ratio values are basically consistent for W > 1100, and the average values are 1.063 (para) and 1.064 (perp). Therefore, increasing the proton cross section by 10% in the MC causes the DFs to increase by 6.3% (6.4%) for para (perp). Similarly, I used Liang's and Eric's 7/22 models to calculate the average ratio of DFs from these models, but it is small (0.9% for para and 0.8% for perp). In this case, the systematic uncertainty in DF is estimated to be 0.45% for para (0.4% for perp). But I believe this is underestimate because we also need to consider the uncertainty in each model.

Systematic uncertainty in DF

Summarized below is the systematic uncertainty in DF

Table 1: DF Systematics

	Proton model (Dec01)	Run Selection (Jul25)	PF measurement (Aug16)	Total
DF Systematic Uncertainty (Para)	(0.45 %)	0.8%	0.22 %	0.94 %
DF Systematic Uncertainty (Perp)	(0.40 %)	0.8%	0.72 %	1.15 %

Status and results (Oct. 26, 2005)

Updated results of Packing Fractions and Dilution Factors (NH3 only)
Eric's new proton model (7/22) was used in the MC. Ran the MC to get new PFs and DFs for NH3 targets. Although it was suggested at the meeting last week that I calculate DFs using the PFs obtained previously, I decided to obtain new PFs this time because I've not done that for a long time and wanted to make sure they still look okay. Indeed, the values still don't change much as you see Tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments
(PF increased by)

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
55.8+/-0.2 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF +0.6%

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 52.5+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF +0.3%

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
56.9+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF +0.8%

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.9+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF +0.2%

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments
(PF increased by)

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
57.8+/-0.3
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF +0.6%

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 53.2+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF +0.2%

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
60.0+/-0.4 (1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF +0.7%

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
60.8+/-0.4 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF +0.3%

New DFs (Ver. Oct26) were obtained using the new PFs and Eric's 7/22 model. As before, I replaced DFs for low W (w<1100MeV) by those obtined by Mark. The DF plots indicate that there seems to be little difference between the new and previous results. (Note that Eric's 6/14 model was used to obtain DFs dated 7/8.) But the close-up of the resonance region shows that they clearly differ at around W=1360MeV. That's because Eric's new(7/22) and previous(6/14) models differ most significantly around this W region (see the cross section plot Karl posted on 10/06 ). I also noticed that the second resonance peak is not really at 1535MeV (S11). My DF plots as well as the cross section plot shows that it is at ~1500 MeV.

Table 3: NH3 Dilution Factors (Ver. Oct26) -- Using Eric's model (7/22)

Target	Field	T/B	PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	52.5+/-0.2	Data, Plot, Resonance Region,
NH3	Perp	Top	58.9+/-0.3	Data, Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	53.2+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Bot	60.8+/-0.3	Data, Plot

Status and results (Aug. 26, 2005)

Comparison of data and MC for Empty and He targets

The scaling factor (applied to A>2 cross section) was already applied in the MC. The values are 1.11 for hi, 1.07 for lo. The plots below indicate that data and MC agree for the low momentum runs, but there is about10% dicrepancy for the hi runs.

Result of empty run (with NO LHe) (hi momentum) ,(lo momentum) .

He results were obtained by subtracting C+nohe from C+He run (hi momentum) ,(lo momentum) .

Status and results (Aug. 16, 2005)

Preliminary Results of proton and deuteron model systematics in PF

In order to estimate the model systematic uncertainty in PF, data are compared with proton and deuteron models by varying the PF values. The ratio of MC(proton or deuteron ONLY) and "data minus MC(without proton or deuteron)" is obtained for each W bin. The ratio is averated over 1.5 < w< 1.8 at given PF. We found at what PF the ratio becomes 1.0.

The average ABSOLUTE differences in PFs for NH3 are 0.65% (para) and 2.1%(perp). (The relative differences are 1.2%(para) and 3.8%(perp). That indicates that these PF differences would change the DFs by 0.44%(para) and 1.41(%). (I applied the scaling factor of x0.37 which is obtained from the results on jul25 where it says 4.5% relative change in PF leads to 1.7% relative change in DF for NH3.) Therefore, I estimate the relative systematic uncertainties due to the PF extraction methods are 0.22%(para) and 0.70% (perp) for NH3.

Similarly, the average PF differences (ABSOLUTE) for ND3 between the two results are 0.9% (para) and 1.1%(perp). The relative differences are 1.6%(para) and 2.0%(perp). The estimated relative systematic uncertainties in DF due to this are therefore 0.3% (para) and 0.4% (perp)

Table 1:

Target	Field	T/B	PF(%)(org results: models are compared with data)	Results	PF(%) (PF at ratio=1.0 is interpolated)
NH3	Para	Top	52.2+/-0.2		51.6,Plot
NH3	Perp	Top	58.7+/-0.3		60.8,Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	53.0+/-0.2	Comparison:pf=51,52,53,54,55(%), (All 5plots) Ratio:pf=51,52,53,54,55(%), (All 5plots)	52.3,Plot
NH3	Perp	Bot	60.5+/-0.3		62.6,Plot
ND3	Para	Top	53.5+/-0.2		52.5,Plot
ND3	Perp	Top	TBA
ND3	Para	Bot	54.3+/-0.2		53.6,Plot
ND3	Perp	Bot	60.3+/-0.3		61.4,Plot

Deuteron Quasielastic Asymmetry with Nitrogen correction

Obtained deuteron QE asymmetries for 700<w<1100 MeV, using DFs from jul08. Nitrogen correction is also applied (A_d= eps/f/Pb/Pt + C1*A1). The values for C1 are provided to me by Mark. The C1 values I used were obtained using P15/P2 and P1/P2 from the E143 technical run. A1 is the 'predicted' proton asymmetry for the RSS kinematics. Effect of the nitrogen correction (2nd term) is about 7% [5%] of the count asymmetry(1st term) for W=940MeV and para [perp]. The asymmetry results were averaged over 880<w<1000.
Predicted asymmetry with D-state correction (x 0.93) has been applied.
Para: both top and bottom asymmetries agree very well. If one takes the average of top and bottom (0.165 +- 0.009), the prediction(0.180) is 1.7 sigma away from data.
Perp: We used Bosted's fit (Walcher's fit) for proton (neutron) form factors to get a predicted value (shown in red). For proton form factors, we also used the ratio Gep/Gmp from recoil polarization experiments to get a slightly different prediction (shown in blue). But data agree with both predictions within error bar.

Status and results (Jul. 25, 2005)

Study of systematic errors in DFs due to Run Selection

As suggested at the meeting before, I used different runs(NH3,ND3,C)
with higher (or lower) event rates (about 1-2% difference) and recalculated the PFs (using
low pHMS runs) to see how much the values are different. The largest ABSOLUTE
difference in PFs (between new and original results) I found is 2.5% (4.5% relative)
for nh3 (nh3-para-bot), and -1.3% (2.4% relative) for nd3 (nd3-para-top).
The DFs were calculated using those new PF results. The ratio of
DFs (= DF(new)/DF(orig)) for each w-bin was also calculated,
and the average ratio for w>1100 is 1.0167+-0.0017 for NH3, and
0.9903+-0.0012 for ND3. (The ratio plots are here.) From these average ratios, I estimate the relative
systematic uncertainties in dilution factor are 0.8% for NH3, and 0.5%
for ND3 for these particular cases. So, the DFs do not strongly depend on the run selection.

Similar systematic study for other target configurations (for ex, perp field) need to be done.

Status and results (Jul. 08, 2005)

Dilution Factors for NH3 and ND3

New sets of NH3 and ND3 dilution factors were obtained. We used Eric's latest model (6/14) for NH3 runs and updated deuteron QE model for ND3 runs. As before, I replaced DFs for low w (w<1.1) by those obtined by Mark using the elastic data.

Table 1: Dilution Factors (jul08)

Target	Field	T/B	PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	52.2+/-0.2	Data, Plot,
NH3	Perp	Top	58.7+/-0.3	Data, Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	53.0+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Bot	60.5+/-0.3	Data, Plot
ND3	Para	Top	53.5+/-0.2	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Top	TBA	TBA	working
ND3	Para	Bot	54.3+/-0.2	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Bot	60.3+/-0.3	Data, Plot

Study of Systematic Uncertainty in DF (preliminary)

Because an input PF value is needed to calculate the DFs, I calculated two sets of DFs using the PFs obtained from the low- and hi-phms runs, and made a plot of the Ratio of them, (DF(PF1) / DF(PF2) -1) for each w bin. Here, I studied the particular case, NH3-para-bot, where the discrepancy between the PFs is the largest (4%). I have not calculated an average value yet, but the average ratio for W >1.1Gev looks like 3-4% .

Status and results (Jun. 28, 2005)

NH3 Dilution Factors

I was working on fixing Eric's routines (ver 05/05/30) last week, but then noticed that Eric had posted the updated proton fit routines and data files as of 6/14/05. I already incorporated this latest version in the MC, but am still working on calculating DFs. W ,Target ,PF

ND3 Packing Fractions and Dilution factors

Deuteron Q.E. model has been changed by Oscar (see his email dated Jun09 and 13) this month,and the new set of ND3 PFs were calculated. Deuteron PFs became smaller by ~2% compared to the previous results (Apr28). The agreement between data and MC is especially good near the QE region. The DFs will be obtained soon.

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	53.0+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	53.5+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	PF < 62.3	(1.1,1.5)	---	Working..
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	PF < 66.0	(1.5,1.8)	---	Working..

Table 4: ND3,

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	56.3 +/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43743	54.3 +/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43520)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	59.1 +/-0.3	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43550)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	60.3 +/-0.3	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3

Status and results (Jun. 17, 2005)

New Deuteron model

Because the deuteron model for quasi-elastic was updated, I compared the model with the data by subtracting the MC without deuteron from the data: New model(06/14) and Old model.

Proton Packing Fractions (NH3 only)

As we discussed this monday, we recalculate proton dilutrion factors using Eric's latest model (2005/05/30). However, we found that the MC weight sometimes becomes NaN. We fixed a few things, and are still working on it.

Status and results (May. 19, 2005)

Updated Results of Packing Fractions (NH3 only)

The proton inelastic cross section model was changed to Eric's from Liang's last week. The NH3 PFs became smaller by 1% or less compared to the previous results. The changes made this week affect the proton PFs only.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
55.2+/-0.2 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 52.2+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
56.1+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.7+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
57.2+/-0.2
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 53.0+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
59.3+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
60.5+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Preliminary Dilution Factors (NH3-top only)

The DFs for NH3-top para/perp were calculated for 740 < W < 2060 MeV using 15MeV wide bins (total 88 bins). The HMS delta cuts of -9 < hsdelta < +10% and numerical weights were applied. Because the proton inelastic model (Eric's fit is currently used) may be changed soon, I did not calculate the NH3-bottom DFs this time. The red points on the plots show the DFs obtained by Mark using the RSS data. Last time (May 06) the DFs at low W (W<1100MeV) were replaced with Mark's DFs, but I did not do that this time because both results do not agree at W=1100.

Table 5: Preliminary Dilution Factors

Target	Field	T/B	PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	52.4+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Top	58.9+/-0.3	Data, Plot

Comparison of Proton inelastic models

Compare Liang's, Eric's, QFS, and Brasse with the RSS data. We subtract the MC (without proton) from the RSS data, and compare that with the MC (proton only). Here, I used the PF for NH3-para-top (55.2%) obtained from the hi-momentum run (pHMS=4703). However, for DF calculation we used PF=52.2% obtained from the LOW momentum run.

Liang's( PF=52.2%)

Status and results (May. 05, 2005)

ND3-perp-top Packing Fractions

Plots of the raster pattern for Carbon and ND3 targets (perp,top) show that the carbon target was fully in the raster region (the raster size is r=1cm). Various raster cuts were applied to select the ND3 events within the rasius r. The PF values become smaller if the raster cuts were also applied to the carbon data when the data/MC is obtained. But the PFs are still high (more than 60%). Does the normalization factor for the ND3 data need to be changed when the raster cuts are applied?

Table 1a: ND3, Perp, TOP, Hi

Radius for the raster cuts	PF	Carbon Ratio =data/MC = CONST (NO raster cuts)
0.4	77.6	1.026
0.5	74.9	1.026
0.7	73.1	1.026
1.0	71.4	1.026

Table 1b: ND3, Perp, TOP, Hi

Radius for the raster cuts	PF	Carbon Ratio =data/MC (raster cuts applied)
0.4	63.6	1.154
0.5	62.5	1.139
0.7	63.4	1.111
1.0	66.1	1.074

Table 2a: ND3, Perp, TOP, Lo

Radius for the raster cuts	PF	Carbon Ratio =data/MC = CONST (NO raster cuts)
0.4	78.5	1.004
0.5	79.3	1.004
0.7	74.9	1.004
1.0	74.8	1.004

Table 2b: ND3, Perp, TOP, Lo

Radius for the raster cuts	PF	Carbon Ratio =data/MC (raster cuts applied)
0.4	69.5	1.100
0.5	71.5	1.077
0.7	69.7	1.056
1.0	70.7	1.043

NH3 Dilution Factors (Addition on May 06)

As discussed at the meeting on May05, I replaced my NH3 DF data(created using Liang's fit) for W<1.1 with Mark's DF data. The updated DF data files for NH3 are available: Top-Para,Top-Perp,Bot-Para,Bot-Perp .

Status and results (Apr. 28, 2005)

Updated Results of Packing Fractions

The MC was modified last week. (Rad lenghts of beam exit, 5cm of air, OVC and LN2 shield were added in the code) The 'scalein' value of 1.11 (1.07) for hi (lo) momentum was obtained.

Looking into the ND3-perp-top data to extract correct PFs.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
55.8+/-0.2 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 52.4+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
56.9+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.9+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
57.8+/-0.3
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 53.2+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
60.0+/-0.4 (1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
60.7+/-0.4 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	55.4+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	55.2+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	PF < %	(1.1,1.5)	---	Working..
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	PF < %	(1.5,1.8)	---	Working..

Table 4: ND3,

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	58.9 +/-0.3	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43743	56.0 +/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43520)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	61.9 +/-0.4	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43550)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	62.1 +/-0.4	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3

Preliminary Dilution Factors (Apr28, 2005)

As before, the DFs were calculated for 740 < W < 2060 MeV using 15MeV wide bins (total 88 bins). The HMS delta cuts of -9 < hsdelta < +10% and numerical weights were applied.

Table 5: Preliminary Dilution Factors

Target	Field	T/B	PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	52.4+/-0.2	Data, Plot, Comparison to previous results
NH3	Perp	Top	58.9+/-0.3	Data, Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	53.2+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Bot	60.7+/-0.3	Data, Plot
ND3	Para	Top	55.2+/-0.2	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Top	TBA	TBA	PF is not obtained yet
ND3	Para	Bot	56.0+/-0.2	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Bot	62.1+/-0.3	Data, Plot

Status and results (Apr. 06, 2005) (No meeting this week)

Updated Results of Packing Fractions

PFs were calculated this week because of the changes made in the MC last week. I first ran it on carbon target with the new input parameter 'scalein' being 1.0 to obtain the ratio of Data to MC. That was done for each configuration (hi/lo, para/perp). The average scalein value of 1.08 (1.04) for hi (lo) momentum was obtained. The MC was then run on carbon, NH3, and ND3 using one of the two scalein values and the PFs were extracted. I will try to get the PFs for ND3-perp-top.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
56.1+/-0.2 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 52.4+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
56.5+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.9+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
58.3+/-0.3
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 52.9+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
59.6+/-0.4 (1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
60.6+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	55.3+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	54.4+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	PF < 63%	(1.1,1.5)	---	Working..
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	PF < 67%	(1.5,1.8)	---	Working..

Table 4: ND3, Bot

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	59.1+/-0.3	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43743	55.3+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43520)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	60.5+/-0.3	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43550)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	61.9+/-0.3	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3

Preliminary Dilution Factors (as of Apr06, 2005)

Since the previous DFs were obtained on Mar 03, a number of changes have been made in the MC. (For details, please see my previous status reports below.) It turned out last week that the wrong cross-section subroutine was called for proton MC runs... That was fixed last week. There was also a small error which affects more or less on the deuteron cross section. As before, the DFs were calculated for 740 < W < 2060 MeV using 15MeV wide bins (total 88 bins). The HMS delta cuts of -9 < hsdelta < +10% and numerical weights were applied.

The plots of DFs for both NH3 and ND3 below show that the three resonance peaks looks slightly smeared out compared to our previous plots, but we can't really compare because the previous plots are not correct. Comparison of the DFs from the low and high momentum MC runs in the overlap region shows that the DFs for low momentum setting are slightly higher than those for hi momentum.

Table 5: Preliminary Dilution Factors

Target	Field	T/B	PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	52.4+/-0.2	Data, Plot, Comparison of lo and hi results
NH3	Perp	Top	58.9+/-0.3	Data, Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	52.9+/-0.2	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Bot	60.6+/-0.3	Data, Plot
ND3	Para	Top	54.4+/-0.2	Data, Plot, Comparison of lo and hi results
ND3	Perp	Top	TBA	TBA	PF is not obtained yet
ND3	Para	Bot	55.3+/-0.2	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Bot	61.9+/-0.3	Data, Plot

Status and results (Mar. 31, 2005)

Updating the MC

Mark and I found and fixed two typos in qfs_new12_sub.f early this week. Since then I've been working on finding any errors/typos in the MC. All the variables are now defined explicitly using "implicit none" instead of "implicit real*8 (a-h,o-z)". The new version is called qfs_new13_sub.f. I also made similar modifications in hallc2h.f and hcf2r.f because "implicit real" was also used there. A number of changes have been made in all of those routines, and I believe I finished what I should do. I just did quick calculations of two PFs, and the values I obtained are basically the same as before (about 1% change). I also checked a special carbon run 43204 (pHMS=3.6, no target field), and made a plot of W. The ratio of data to MC is 0.977 for 1.85 < W < 2.05.

Status and results (Mar. 24, 2005)

Updated results of packing fractions

Mark added new energy-loss routines to the MC (enerloss_new.f and engine_eloss.f) and also updated mc_hms_single.f and Makefile. See his emails on Mar18. Updated results of packing fractions are given below. The values change by less than 2% compared to last week's results. The batch jobs for calculating dilution factors are now running on the farm.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
55.8+/-0.2 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 52.0+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
56.0+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.4+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
57.9+/-0.3
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 52.5+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
59.2+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
60.1+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	53.8+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	53.5+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	PF < 63%	(1.1,1.5)	---	Working..
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	PF < 67%	(1.5,1.8)	---	Working..

Table 4: ND3, Bot

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	57.5+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43743	54.4+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43520)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	58.9+/-0.3	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43550)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	60.9+/-0.3	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3

Status and results (Mar. 17, 2005)

Comparison of MC and data on C and He (follow up)

The routine qfs_new12.f was updated last week by Oscar. See Mark's email on Mar 10 for details. Updated plots of W on C+He, C(noHe), and He show that the agreement between the data and MC becomes much better near the quasifree region. Like last week, the two carbon runs [C+He (#43983) and C noHe (#43982)] were used to obtain the plots of pure He.

Updated results of packing fractions

Updated results of PFs using the pass3 ENGINE (run by myself) and the latest MC (as of mar 10) are given in the table below. We used a different carbon run #43743 this week to get the PFs for ND3-low-para-top and ND3-low-para-bot. (Until last week, we used C+He+moller run #43960 to get them.) The values of those PFs are much smaller than those obtained on Feb24 using the run #43960. The PFs for other settings differ less than 2% compared to those on Feb24.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
53.9+/-0.2 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 51.9+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
56.5+/-0.2 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
57.1+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
57.6+/-0.2
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 52.5+/-0.2 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
59.9+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
59.2+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	53.8+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	53.5+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	Different Carbon run
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	TBA	(1.1,1.5)	---	TBA
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	TBA	(1.5,1.8)	---	TBA

Table 4: ND3, Bot

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	57.5+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43743	54.6+/-0.2	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	Different Carbon run
ND3 (43520)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	59.1+/-0.2	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43550)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	61.4+/-0.3	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3

Status and results (Mar. 09, 2005)

Comparison of MC and data on Carbon and He

We continued to study the ratio of data/MC for Carbon and He. This time, we used two carbon runs [C+He (#43983) and C noHe (#43982)] to obtain the results for pure He by subtracting the yields of Carbon from C+He. The plots of W on C+He, C(noHe), and He show that the data and MC agree well for all three cases. To get these results, I used the latest MC (qfs_new12_sub.f was recently updated by Mark on Mar 04 in which the way the elastic and quasielastic cross sections are calculated was changed.)
I also used the old MC (as of Mar 03) to create same plots of W. As you see, the ratio on carbon is about 1.1. We also notice that the agreement on He is also good in this W range (W<1.6). But last week, I found that the ratio on He (using an Empty-with-He run #43994) is quite large (1.17). I don't know why we got different results in this W range.

Comparison of Dilution Factors in the overlap region (1300<W<1600)

I made comparison of preliminary dilution factors obtained using pHMS=4703 and pHMS=4078 in the MC. The top (bottom) plot is the result for NH3 (ND3). For both targets, the two results in the overlap region (1300 < W < 1600 MeV) agree within error bars. For ND3 target, the RED curve (pHMS=4078) shows a clearer resonance peak at W~1500 than the BLACK one. The difference between both curves is about 2% level. The preliminary dilution factors posted on Mar 03 were obtained by weighted-averaging the two dilution factors (whenever both results are available in a given W bin).

Status and results (Mar. 03, 2005)

Comparison of MC and data for higher momentum (pHMS=4.984) runs

I checked the higher momentum runs with pHMS=4.9 (#43994: Empty with He, #43995:C+He ) as suggested by Oscar last week at the meeting. The ratio of data/MC on He(#43994)is quite large (1.17) for 0.8<w<1.4. However, after the He contribution is subtracted, the ratio on pure C is very small(0.76) in this W region. It is interesting to see how the agreement is in the larger W region, but we need to identify which 'empty' runs are really 'with He'.

Preliminary Dilution Factors (NH3 and ND3)

Preliminary dilution factors were calculated by running the MC with the preliminary PFs obtained on Feb.24. However, the DF for ND3-perp-top was not obtained because the PF for this case is not yet available. The PFs obtained from the LOW momentum runs were used in the MC. The DFs were calculated for 740 < W < 2060 MeV using 15MeV wide bins (total 88 bins) as requested by Frank. The HMS delta cuts of -9 < hsdelta < +10% and numerical weights were applied. The number of trials in the input file for the MC is 14M, and there are about 5M events (unweighted) after the cuts were applied. The statistical uncertainty on the DF is less than 1% except for very hi and low W regions. The plots and the data are given below:

Table 1: Preliminary Dilution Factors

Target	Field	T/B	PF(%)	Results	Comments
NH3	Para	Top	52.6+/-0.3	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Top	57.3+/-0.3	Data, Plot
NH3	Para	Bot	53.2+/-0.3	Data, Plot
NH3	Perp	Bot	59.9+/-0.5	Data, Plot
ND3	Para	Top	61.4+/-0.5	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Top	TBA	TBA	PF is not obtained yet
ND3	Para	Bot	62.5+/-0.5	Data, Plot
ND3	Perp	Bot	61.5+/-0.5	Data, Plot

Status and results (Feb. 24, 2005)

Updated results of the PFs using the pass3 ENGINE(as of Feb18) and the latest MC. The shape of the W histo for the MC became much similar to that of the data.

NH3 PFs: values changed by +/-1% or less compared to the results on Jan27;
ND3 PFs: values became smaller by 10% (for HI momentum) and 2-3% (for LO momentum).

Systematic uncertainties: The PFs weakly depend on the W range. The values change by about +/-0.3% (low-para) and +/-1% or less (low-perp) when a wider region of W is chosen. For perp runs, the difference between the PFs for HI and LO settings is small (less than 2%) but it is 3-8% for para runs.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
55.6+/-0.3 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43740) 4078 (LO) Para Top 43743 52.6+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43261)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
58.1+/-0.4 (1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43369)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
57.3+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
57.9+/-0.4
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43737) 4078 (LO) Para Bot 43743 53.2+/-0.3 (1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43286)
4703 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
60.5+/-0.5 (1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

NH3 (43364)
4078 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
59.9+/-0.5 (1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass3

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	53.8+/-0.3	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43960 (C+He+Moller)	61.4+/-0.5	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43450)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	TBA	(1.1,1.5)	---	TBA
ND3 (43490)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	TBA	(1.5,1.8)	---	TBA

Table 4: ND3, Bot

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	57.2+/-0.3	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43960 (C+He+Moller)	62.5+/-0.5	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43520)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	59.9+/-0.4	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3
ND3 (43550)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	61.5+/-0.5	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass3

Status and results (Feb. 17, 2005)

Since last week, a number of changes/updates in ENGINE and MC have been made by Mark and Oscar. The files modified/updated were listed below. (For more details, please read their emails sent out from Feb.10 to 16 or read the section "Changes for pass3" at RSS analysis page).

I replayed some runs myself using the 'pass3' ENGINE. In addition, MC batch jobs were also submitted. Unfortunately, most of the ENGINE batch jobs failed due to the staging problem on the farm cache. I have restarted those failed runs, but the jobs are still pending. Fortunately some of the ND3 runs were successfully replayed (but the corresponding carbon runs were not). Because of this, I extracted the ND3 PFs using the pass2a Carbon ntuple and pass3 ND3 ntuple files. Therefore, the normalization factors and the PFs are probably not correct. But you can still see the 'shape' of W for the MC (ND3) looks quite similar to that of data. (You could also check my old plots posted on Jan.27 to see how it is improved.)

Delta acceptance defined in the input file for the MC is now +/-12% (it was +/-10%). Comparison of Carbon data #43774 (pass3) with the MC

Uncertainty on packing fraction is calculated. It is small (~0.5%).

Table: ND3, Bot

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	(57.4+/-0.3)	(1.1,1.5)	PF	pass2a(C),pass3(ND3),latest MC Norm factor and PF may be wrong
ND3 (43520)	4703 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	(62.4+/-0.6)	(1.1,1.5)	PF	pass2a(C),pass3(ND3),latest MC Norm factor and PF may be wrong
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43960 (C+He+Moller)	(61.6+/-0.5)	(1.5,1.8)	PF	pass2a(C),pass3(ND3),latest MC Norm factor and PF may be wrong
ND3 (43550)	4078 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	(62.0+/-0.5)	(1.5,1.8)	PF	pass2a(C),pass3(ND3),latest MC Norm factor and PF may be wrong

Status and results (Feb. 10, 2005)

I calculated the ratio of MC to data using a special carbon run (pHMS=3.6 and NO target field) as asked by Oscar.

      A. OLD MC (before Jan21) + Pass2a             Plots
         Ratio: MC/Data:   0.998 (1.85< w < 2.05)
                           0.993 (1.7 < w < 2.2)

      B. Latest MC + Pass2a                         Plots
         Ratio: MC/Data:   1.001 (1.85< w < 2.05)
                           1.010 (1.7 < w < 2.2)

      C. Latest MC + Pass3 (Latest replay with new drift maps etc) Plots
         Ratio: MC/Data:   1.002 (1.85< w < 2.05)
                       1.014 (1.7 < w < 2.2)

      Results obtained by Hongguo are here.
      It turns out the MC hsdelta for case A does not agree well with data
      for the lower delta region (hsdelta < -5), but the agreement became much
      better for cases B and C. (Note: when I made hsdelta plots, I applied all the cuts EXCEPT
for abs(hsdelta)<8.0 to see how the agreement between data and MC is beyond this range.)

Ran MC on NH3 target with the packing fractions obtained on Jan.27. All the batch jobs were finished,

Working on the uncertainties on the packing fraction

Status and results (Feb. 03, 2005)

PFs do not strongly depend on the carbon and NH3 runs chosen:

same NH3 run but a different Carbon run ==> difference is 1.0% or less
same NH3 run but using a Carbon+He run ==> difference is 1.5% or less

PFs can be obtained accurately using "C+He" and NH3 runs.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
events
(K)
Norm.
Factor:
MC/Data
PF
(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703
(HI)
Para
Top
43774(no He)
43797(no He)
43798(no He)
43775(with He)
43776(with He)
43799(with He)
846K
492k
852k
804k
930k
857k
0.880
0.881
0.870
0.875
0.880
0.872
56.0
56.2
55.0
55.5
56.0
55.2
(1.1,1.5)
(1.1,1.5)
(1.1,1.5)
(1.1,1.5)
(1.1,1.5)
(1.1,1.5)
W,Target,PF

W,Target,PF
pass2a

NH3 (43261)
4723
(HI)
Perp
Top
43284(no He)
43323(no He)
43395(with He)
482k
400k
940k
0.883
0.876
0.871
57.2
56.3
55.7
(1.1,1.5)
(1.1,1.5)
(1.1,1.5)
W,Target,PF zoff = -0.08
zoff = +0.22
zoff = -0.25

NH3 (43740)
4078
(LO)
Para
Top
43743(no He)
1424k
0.941
52.6
(1.5,1.8) W,Target,PF pass2a

NH3 (43369)
    (43372)
    (43374)
    (43369)
    (43369)
    (43369)
    (43369)
4095
(LO)
Perp
Top
43361(no He)
43361(no He)
43361(no He)
43359(no He)
43363(no He)
43363(with He)
43362(with He)
806k
806k
806k
422k
966k
966k
963k
0.934
0.934
0.934
0.925
0.72
0.935
0.946
58.5
58.2
58.8
57.5
34.1
58.6
59.9
(1.5,1.8)
(1.5,1.8)
(1.5,1.8)
(1.5,1.8)
(1.5,1.8)
(1.5,1.8)
(1.5,1.8) W,Target,PF

W,Target,PF
W,Target,PF
W,Target,PF
pass2a

Really "no He"?
Must be "C+He"

Results of the PFs for ND3-Hi(Lo)-Perp-Top: Target was not fully in the beam raster duing data taking.

Table 2: ND3, Top, Perp, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%) r=0.5cm	PF(%) r=0.7cm	PF(%) r=1.0cm	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43450)	4723 (HI)	43400	73.5	72.0	76.7	(1.1,1.5)		Raster cuts applied
ND3 (43490)	4095 (LO)	43547	77.0	76.4	75.7	(1.5,1.8)		Raster cuts applied

Status and results (Jan. 27, 2005)

Several routines for the MC were updated by Mark (see his emails on Jan. 21 and 26). Also, Pass2a replays have been finished by Frank.

Updated all the perp PFs obtained last month. The difference between PF values obtained this week and last month is less than 1% (except for ND3-Hi-Perp-Bottom for which deuteron QFS model was updated last week). We also calculated para PFs. Note that these results are still priminary because of low statistics. The number of trials in the MC input files is only 400,000. (It needs to be ~14M to get enough statistics.) However, we expect the results of the final calculation should not change much (within 1-2% difference).

For ND3-Low-Para-TOP setting, there is no [C + no He] run. The only Carbon run we have is Carbon with Helium (#43960) but the Moller target was unfortunately IN when this data was taken. We nonetheless used this run to to obtain the PF for this setting.

For ND3-Perp-Top, the target was not entirely in the raster (see my status report on Dec16 below). I'm working on calculating PFs by appling cuts on beam raster positions.

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
56.0
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass2a

NH3 (43261)
4723 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
57.2
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass2a

NH3 (43740)
4078 (LO)
Para
Top
43743
52.6
(1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass2a

NH3 (43369)
4095 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.5
(1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass2a

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43801)
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
43774
58.1
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF pass2a

NH3 (43286)
4723 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
59.4
(1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF pass2a

NH3 (43737)
4078 (LO)
Para
Bot 43743
52.7
(1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF pass2a

NH3 (43364)
4095 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
60.5
(1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF pass2a

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43855)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43887	64.5	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass2a
ND3 (43450)	4723 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	>70 ?	(1.1,1.5)	---	Working...
ND3 (43950)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43960 (C+He)	63.7	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	C+He target with Moller IN, pass2a
ND3 (43490)	4095 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	TBA	(1.5,1.8)	---	Working...

Table 4: ND3, Bot

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (43895)	4703 (HI)	Para	Bot	43887	68.9	(1.1,1.5)	W ,Target ,PF	pass2a
ND3 (43520)	4723 (HI)	Perp	Bot	43536	70.0	(1.1,1.4)	W ,Target ,PF	pass2a; Use pf60,70%
ND3 (43939)	4078 (LO)	Para	Bot	43960 (C+He)	65.0	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	C+He target with Moller IN, pass2a
ND3 (43550)	4095 (LO)	Perp	Bot	43547	63.8	(1.5,1.8)	W ,Target ,PF	pass2a; Use pf60,70%

Status and results (Jan. 20, 2005)

ND3 Dilution Factors near QFS region

Oscar has updated the QFS model for the deuteron, and the updated qfs_new12.f routine was used in the MC. Packing fractions and dilution factors around the QFS peak (0.7 < w < 1.1) for ND3 data were obtained.

First, I used ND3-perp-bottom run (43520) to obtain PF for 1.1< W < 1.5. Agreement between MC and data near the QFS peak region became much better. The value of PF is still high (70.6%), but it became smaller by 2% than that obtained with the previous version of qfs_new12.f.

I then calculated PF for 0.7<W<1.1 and obtained PF= 55.6%. Using this value in the MC, I calculated dilution factors fot this W range. W Bin width is 15MeV.

NH3 Dilution Factors (Dec,2004)

Last month, I worked on calculating NH3 dilution factors. MC program was run with the preliminary PFs obtained on Dec. 16 (see below). DF for NH3 data is given by the ratio of the proton events to the total events after cuts are applied (abs(hsdelta)<8. and numer_wt). The w range is from 815 to 1970 MeV and W bin width is 15MeV. Because PFs for 'lo' and 'hi' data are not the same, I used the values for 'lo' momentum PFs to run the MC. para-top, perp-top, perp-bottom, and comparison of para-top and perp-top .

Status and results (Dec. 16, 2004)

A bug in trg_track.f routine has been fixed by Oscar (see his email on Dec 03). All runs taken with parallel field need to be replayed again (pass2a).

Some NH3-PARA-TOP runs were already replayed, and the new PF results are given in Table 1 below (shown in RED). Plots of 'Target' show that the xptar for MC and data agree quite well. The updated PF values for those settings differ from those obtained on Dec 02 by less than 1.0%.
In the meantime, PFs for ND3-PERP-TOP settings were not obtained because the target was not entirely in the slow raster region (see Oscar's email on Dec 08).

The results of PFs obtained below are still preliminary because of low statistics (the # of trials in the MC was 400,000.)

Table 1: NH3, TOP

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
56.7
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF Updated results
zoff changed

NH3 (43261)
4723 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
57.7
(1.1,1.5) W ,Target ,PF Updated results
zoff changed

NH3 (43740)
4078 (LO)
Para
Top
43743
53.1
(1.5,1.8) W ,Target ,PF Updated results
zoff changed

NH3 (43369)
4095 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.0
(1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF (unchanged)

Table 2: NH3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)

W Range
Plots
Comments

NH3
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot

TBA

NH3 (43286)
4723 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43284
60.4
(1.1,1.5)
W ,Target ,PF (Using old
pass2 ntuples)

NH3
4078 (LO)
Para
Bot
TBA

NH3 (43364)
4095 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43361
59.9
(1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF (Using old
pass2 ntuples)

Table 3: ND3, Top

Target(Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	T/B	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	W Range	Plots	Comments
ND3 (TBA)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top		TBA		W, Target, PF
ND3 (43450)	4723 (HI)	Perp	Top	43400	---		---	Postponed
ND3	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	No C+noHe Run	N/A		N/A	Use C+He?
ND3 (43490)	4095 (LO)	Perp	Top	43547	---		---	Postponed

Table 4: ND3, Bot

Target(Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
T/B
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
W Range
Plots
Comments

ND3
4703 (HI)
Para
Bot
TBA

ND3 (43520)
4723 (HI)
Perp
Bot 43536
72.7 ??
(1.1,1.4)
W ,Target ,PF (Using old
pass2 ntuples)

ND3
4078 (LO)
Para
Bot
TBA

ND3 (43550)
4095 (LO)
Perp
Bot 43547
63.7
(1.5,1.8)
W ,Target ,PF (Using old
pass2 ntuples)

Status and results (Dec. 02, 2004)

Oscar updated the QFS code and the deuteron model (see his email on Nov24), and I ran the MC with the updated routines. The MC ntuple files as well as the 2nd-pass ntuple files in /work/hallc/e93026/RSS/secondpass/ntup/ were used to extract the packing fractions (PFs).

Packing fractions (preliminary results: # of 'trials' is 400,000 ) are given in the table below. For 'perp NH3' setting, the 'HI' and 'LO' PFs agree well (57.9% and 58.0%, respectively). However, for 'para NH3' and 'perp ND3' settings, the 'HI' PF is 3.5% higher than the 'LO' PF. Note also that the PFs for 'perp ND3' are extremely large (about 70%).

I also made comparison of data with MC. See plots of 'Target'(RED--data, Black--MC). In general, xptar (data) is shifted to the left compared to the MC. Also, distribution of ytar (data) for 'para' settings is much broader than MC.

Target (Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
Top/Bot
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
Plots

NH3 (43724)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
43774
56.1
W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43261)
4723 (HI)
Perp
Top
43284
57.9
W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43740)
4078 (LO)
Para
Top
43743
52.6
W ,Target ,PF

NH3 (43369)
4095 (LO)
Perp
Top
43361
58.0
W ,Target ,PF

Target (Run#)
pHMS
(MeV/c)
Field
Top/Bot
Carbon(no He)
Run#
PF(%)
Plots

ND3 (TBA)
4703 (HI)
Para
Top
TBA
TBA
TBA

ND3 (43450)
4723 (HI)
Perp
Top
43400
72.5
W ,Target ,PF

ND3
4078 (LO)
Para
Top
(None)
N/A

ND3 (43490)
4095 (LO)
Perp
Top
43547
69.0
W ,Target ,PF

Status and results (Nov. 19, 2004)

The MC program has been updated such that multiple ntuple files can be created for each run. (Each ntuple file contains up to 500,000 events). The updated routine, mc_hms_single.f, will be saved in CVS.

Values for the input parameters for MC have been adjusted so that the events are sampled more efficiently (thus reducing run times).

Electron momentum (dp/p) +/-12% --> +/-10%
Target horizontal acceptance: +/-35 mr --> +/-33 mr
Target vertical acceptance: +/-150 mr --> +/-110 mr (para) [-90 to +110(perp)]

After these changes, MC run about 1.5 times faster. Values for the packing fractions shift ~0.5% or less after those changes were made. (I generated ~40,000 events to peform this test.)

Ran batch jobs and extracted the packing fractions for the following cases. There are about 3M events under the specified W range after the hsdelta cuts of +/-8% are applied.

LO, parallel, top, NH3 (#43740) Packing Fraction carbon run (#43743)

HI, parallel, top, NH3 (#43724) Packing Fraction carbon run (#43774)

HI, perpendicular, top, NH3 (#43261) Packing Fraction carbon run (#43284)

Shigeyuki Tajima

	S (C.target Data/MC)	Y (Data)	Y_MC (PF=50%) Unscaled	Y_MC (PF=60%) Unscaled	m (slope)	b (intercept)	pf*	m' (=S m)	b' (=S b)	pf*'	d(pf*') (due to S)	d(pf')/pf (Rel.error)
High pHMS	1.110	139.8	118.8	132.9	141.0	48.3	0.649	156.5	53.6	0.550	-0.0446	-8.11 %
Low pHMS	1.075	269.8	239.7	268.1	284.0	97.7	0.606	305.3	105.0	0.540	-0.0441	-8.17 %

	Scalein	C.Ratio (Data/MC)	Y(Data)	Y_MC (PF=50%)	Y_MC (PF=60%)	W Range
High pHMS	1.0	1.119	126.8	107.1	119.3	(1.2,1.5)
Low pHMS	1.0	1.049	236.9	222.2	246.0	(1.5,1.8)
High pHMS	1.04	1.084	126.8	110.0	122.5	(1.2,1.5)
Low pHMS	0.96	1.090	236.9	215.6	238.2	(1.5,1.8)

Target (Run#)	pHMS (MeV/c)	Field	Top/Bot	Carbon(no He) Run#	PF(%)	Plots
NH3 (43724)	4703 (HI)	Para	Top	43774	56.1	W ,Target ,PF
NH3 (43261)	4723 (HI)	Perp	Top	43284	57.9	W ,Target ,PF
NH3 (43740)	4078 (LO)	Para	Top	43743	52.6	W ,Target ,PF
NH3 (43369)	4095 (LO)	Perp	Top	43361	58.0	W ,Target ,PF