1: \section{Systematic Uncertainties}
2: \label{sec:systematics}
3: The major sources of systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table~\ref{ta:sysSummary}. To estimate the systematic uncertainties, the measured or nominal value of the shift parameter $\alpha$ was compared to the $\alpha$ values determined when using alternative cuts or corrections. The $\alpha$ parameter was determined by the fit to the linear slope of the ratio of mass distributions as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:simpleRatio}. The difference in $\alpha$ was utilized as a measure of the systematic uncertainty. The estimated common uncertainty for a given effect was the weighted root-mean-square of the difference in $\alpha$ for all the altered cuts or corrections. For every case except the target position study, the $\tife$ and $\dnuc$ data were analyzed.
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \begin{table}[htbp]
7: \begin{center}
8: \caption{\small{Summary of systematic uncertainties in the mass shift parameter $\alpha$. For the total error, the individual contributions were added in quadrature.}}
9: \begin{tabular} {c|c|c} \hline \hline
10: Source & Description & $\Delta \alpha$ \\ \hline \hline
11: Vertex Cuts & Radial Position & 0.003 \\ \hline
12: & $z$ Position & 0.001 \\ \hline
13: & Time & 0.002 \\ \hline
14: Corrections & Momentum Corrections & 0.0015 \\ \hline
15: & Target Energy Loss & 0.001 \\ \hline
16: Target Position & $z$ Dependence & 0.006 \\ \hline
17: Background Sub. & Mixed-Event & 0.001 \\
18: & Normalization Factor & \\ \hline
19: Fit Range & Table~\ref{ta:errFitRange} & 0.007 \\ \hline
20: Total & Sum of individual sources & 0.01 \\ \hline \hline
21: \end{tabular}
22: \label{ta:sysSummary}
23: \end{center}
24: \end{table}
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26:
27: For each vertex cut listed in Table~\ref{ta:sysSummary}, loose and tight cuts around the nominal value were applied.
28:
29: For the momentum corrections and target energy loss corrections, the values of $\alpha$ were compared with and without the corrections. The target position uncertainty was obtained by comparing the invariant mass spectrum from the first two carbon targets ($z$ = $-12.0$~cm and $-7.0$~cm) to the last two carbon targets ($z$ = $-2.0$~cm and $3.0$~cm). The $\Delta\alpha$ was about 0.006 due to the low statistics of the same-charge events that contributed to the estimation of combinatorial background for each carbon target. The total systematic uncertainty is much smaller than the statistical uncertainty.
30:
31: The systematic uncertainty in the background subtraction was evaluated with two fits to the experimental $\rho$ mass spectra, a Breit-Wigner shape and a Breit-Wigner/$\mu^{3}$. As stated in Sec.~\ref{sec:rhoSpec}, the systematic uncertainty due to the shape of the background function is estimated to be negligible. For the background normalization factor, the 7\% statistical uncertainty from the mixed-event technique (see Sec.~\ref{sec:combbgd}) was propagated through the simple ratio analysis to estimate $\Delta\alpha$. The result is a 0.001 difference in the measured $\alpha$.
32:
33: As discussed before, the structure seen in the ratio plots can be very sensitive to a mass shift and/or change in the width. More realistic functional forms describing these changes were studied, but a linear fit was used as a simple measure for observing small possible changes in the mass. The characteristic plot of the ratio of two spectra indicated the sensitive range to the mass shift. Using simulation data for known mass shifts, the slope of the linear fit was translated to $\alpha$ and compared with the slope in Fig ~\ref{fig:slopeComp}. The systematic uncertainty associated with the choice of the fit range is summarized in the Table~\ref{ta:errFitRange}. For the determination of the systematic uncertainty, the fit range was varied by 0.02~GeV with all of the permutations taken into account (varying only the upper limit , varying only the lower limit, and varying both limits). The total value is an over-estimation of the systematic uncertainty due to the choice of the fit range.
34:
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: \begin{table}[htbp]
37: \begin{center}
38: \caption{\small{Summary of the results of the systematic uncertainty on $\alpha$ due to the choice of fit range. The change to the limits in each case was 0.02~GeV.}}
39: \begin{tabular} {c|c} \hline \hline
40: Fit Range & Sys. Uncertainty in $\alpha$\\ \hline \hline
41: Increase/decrease upper limit & 0.003 \\ \hline
42: Increase/decrease lower limit & $<0.001$ \\ \hline
43: Increase/decrease both limits & 0.006 \\ \hline
44: Shift the fit range & 0.003 \\ \hline
45: Total & 0.007 \\ \hline \hline
46: \end{tabular}
47: \label{ta:errFitRange}
48: \end{center}
49: \end{table}
50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
51: