1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % $Id: SAID_analysis.tex,v 1.60 2007/05/01 16:30:28 pasyuk Exp $
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: Multipole amplitude analyses provide a powerful tool for extracting
6: information about the reaction process in as nearly a
7: model-independent manner as possible~\cite{sm02}. This approach, in
8: turn, facilitates the identification of $s$-channel resonances
9: involved in the reaction process.
10:
11: Cross sections from this experiment have been included in, and
12: excluded from, a number of multipole fits to the full SAID
13: database~\cite{sm02} in order to gauge their influence and
14: compatibility with previous measurements. In Table~\ref{tab:tbl1}, the
15: values of $\chi^2$ resulting from these fits are compared to
16: predictions from MAID (MAID05~\cite{maid} and MAID03~\cite{maid03})
17: and an earlier SAID analysis (SM02)~\cite{sm02}. For the purposes of
18: this discussion, several combinations of data sets and fits are
19: presented. A fit called ``FDX6" was determined from the world database
20: such that it includes recent GRAAL~\cite{GRAAL} and
21: CB-ELSA~\cite{Bonn} data but does not include the present CLAS
22: dataset, whereas the ``FD16" fit includes the CLAS data. To emphasize
23: the effects of the CLAS data reported here and to minimize the
24: influence of CB-ELSA data, the solution ``FA06" is a fit that the
25: weight factor for this data was artificially increased by a factor of
26: 3.
27:
28: The fits FD16 and FA06, despite having different weights for the CLAS
29: data, are in good agreement with each other; this is not surprising,
30: as the older SM02 fit also follows the CLAS data. As seen in
31: Table~\ref{tab:tbl1}, the description of data by MAID is significantly
32: poorer than by any other fit included in this analysis.
33:
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: \begin{table}[th]
36: \caption{$\chi^2$ comparison of fits to
37: 3~GeV, fit SM02 (to 2.0~GeV)~\protect\cite{sm02}, and two
38: recent Mainz fits, MAID05~\protect\cite{maid} and
39: MAID03~\protect\cite{maid03} (to
40: 1650~MeV~\protect\cite{lot}). See text for
41: details. \label{tab:tbl1}}
42: \vspace{2mm}
43: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
44: \colrule
45: Solution & Range~(MeV) & $\chi^2$/Data \\
46: \colrule
47: FA06 & 3000 & 55640/25524 \\
48: FD16 & 3000 & 52196/24008 \\
49: FDX6 & 3000 & 49010/23250 \\
50: SM02 & 2000 & 35297/17571 \\
51: MAID05 & 1650 & 141270/21942 \\
52: MAID03 & 1650 & 486266/21942 \\
53: \colrule
54: \end{tabular}
55: \end{table}
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: \begin{figure*}[th]
58: \includegraphics[height=0.85\textwidth, angle=90]{cc01a.eps}\\%\hfill
59: \includegraphics[height=0.85\textwidth, angle=90]{cc02a.eps}
60: \caption{The differential cross section for
61: $\gamma p\to\pi^0p$ below E$_\gamma$ = 2250~MeV. The angle
62: shown is the pion center-of-mass scattering angle. Solid
63: (short dash-dotted) lines correspond to the SAID FA06
64: (SM02~\protect\cite{sm02}) solution. SM02 curves are shown
65: only for E$_\gamma$ between 1650 and 2000~MeV. Dotted (long
66: dash-dotted) lines give the MAID05~\protect\cite{maid}
67: (MAID03~\protect\cite{maid03}) predictions. MAID03 curves
68: are shown only for E$_\gamma$ between 1050 to 1450~MeV.
69: Experimental data are from the current measurement (filled
70: circles), MAMI-B~\protect\cite{Mainz} (open triangles),
71: GRAAL~\protect\cite{GRAAL} (open squares), and
72: CB-ELSA~\protect\cite{Bonn} (open circles). The plotted
73: experimental data have been selected from energy bins
74: spanning at most 5~MeV. \label{fig:g1}}
75: \end{figure*}
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77:
78: The FA06 and MAID fits are compared to data over the range of the MAID
79: analysis in Fig.~\ref{fig:g1}. Above this energy limit (1650~MeV), we
80: compare FA06 and the older SM02 solution in Fig.~\ref{fig:g1}. The
81: deviation of MAID03 from data and the SAID fits, above approximately
82: 1~GeV, is known to the Mainz group. The (preliminary) MAID05 fit is
83: much improved. A version to be made publicly available through the
84: MAID website will contain further modifications~\cite{sabit}. The
85: MAID05 and SAID fits are significantly different in the most forward
86: bump/dip structure and at backward angles.
87:
88: The forward region continues to differ most in Fig.~\ref{fig:g2},
89: where the fits SM02 and FA06 are compared. At intermediate angles,
90: agreement between the CLAS and CB-ELSA datasets is quite good. Note
91: that the older SM02 fit is in perfect agreement with the most forward
92: CB-ELSA measurements, though these data were not included in the
93: fit. The model dependence of this forward region is further explored
94: in Fig.~\ref{fig:g2}. Note that the FDX6 result, including CB-ELSA
95: but {\em{not}} CLAS data, is actually in worse agreement with the most
96: forward CB-ELSA measurements. The FA06 fit (which includes the CB-ELSA
97: points and the data obtained here) yields results that also fall far
98: below the most forward point measured by the CB-ELSA
99: collaboration. While only suggestive, this observation adds some
100: support to the less rapid increase in the differential cross sections
101: implied by the data obtained here.
102:
103: \begin{figure}[th]
104: %\centerline{
105: \includegraphics[height=0.40\textwidth, angle=90]{cc04a.eps}\\%\hfill
106: \includegraphics[height=0.40\textwidth, angle=90]{cc04b.eps}
107: \caption{The differential cross section for $\gamma
108: p\to\pi^0p$ at E$_\gamma$ = 1775 and 1925~MeV. The angle
109: shown is the pion center-of-mass scattering angle. Solid
110: (long dash-dotted) lines corresponding to the GW SAID FA06
111: (SM02~\protect\cite{sm02}) solution. Dotted lines represent
112: FDX6 results. Experimental data are from the current
113: measurement (filled circles) and CB-ELSA~\protect\cite{Bonn}
114: (open circles). \label{fig:g2}}
115: \end{figure}
116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
117:
118: The present fits have been generated using the most recent GW analysis
119: of pion-nucleon scattering data, which was extended to cover the full
120: resonance region~\cite{sp06}. The upper limit on the photon energy is
121: 3~GeV (as compared to 2~GeV for SM02~\cite{sm02}), incorporating the
122: full CLAS dataset determined here. In Figs.~\ref{fig:g3}
123: and~\ref{fig:g3a}, we display the energy dependence of cross sections
124: at fixed angle. This view most clearly shows the kinematic region and
125: scale of disagreement between the CLAS and CB-ELSA datasets. Also
126: apparent is the transition, between 2 and 3~GeV, to a region where the
127: cross sections have a nearly energy-independent structure.
128: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
129: \begin{figure}[th]
130: \includegraphics[height=0.49\textwidth, angle=90]{cc05a.eps}\\%\hfill
131: \includegraphics[height=0.49\textwidth, angle=90]{cc05b.eps}
132: \caption{Fixed angle excitation functions for
133: $\gamma p\to\pi^0p$. The angle shown is the pion
134: center-of-mass scattering angle. Solid (long dash-dotted)
135: lines corresponding to the GW SAID FA06
136: (SM02~\protect\cite{sm02}) solution. Experimental data are
137: from the current measurement (filled circles) and
138: CB-ELSA~\protect\cite{Bonn} (open circles). \label{fig:g3}}
139: \end{figure}
140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
141: \begin{figure}[th]
142: \includegraphics[height=0.49\textwidth, angle=90]{cc05aB.eps}\\%\hfill
143: \includegraphics[height=0.49\textwidth, angle=90]{cc05bB.eps}
144: \caption{Fixed angle excitation functions for
145: $\gamma p\to\pi^0p$ below 1$\mu$b/sr. Notation as in
146: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:g3}. \label{fig:g3a}}
147: \end{figure}
148: %\clearpage
149: