1: %\documentclass{article}
2: %\usepackage{doublespace}
3: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.25in}
4: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.5in}
5: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}
6: %\setlength{\textwidth}{6in}
7: %\setlength{\headheight}{0.25in}
8: %\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
9: %\begin{document}
10: %\title{Analysis}
11: %\author{N. Fomin}
12: %\maketitle
13:
14: \section{Extracting Cross Sections}
15:
16: After running the Hall-C replay program, the data are now stored as a
17: series of CERNLIB HBOOK ntuples ~\cite{hbook}, which contain
18: event-by-event information on tracks, beam quantities, reconstructed target
19: quantities, timing and PID quantities, and
20: calculated kinematic variables. The analysis code was written in Fortran which
21: is a natural complement to HBOOK ntuples and allows for easy access to and
22: manipulation of the data.
23:
24: There was a series of central angle and corresponding central momentum
25: settings chosen for production data taking. Data were collected on
26: every target for the same angle and momentum settings.
27: From now on, ``data setting'' will be taken
28: to denote a certain angle and central momentum setting of the HMS.
29:
30: \subsection{Approaches to obtaining $\sigma$}
31: There are two approaches to extracting cross sections: the method of
32: corrections and the ratio method. In the first approach, one starts
33: with the measured counts, obtains a charge-normalized yield ($Y_{data}$, corrected for charge and detector
34: efficiencies) and then applies a series of corrections to extract the
35: differential cross section:
36: \begin{equation}
37: \frac{d \sigma}{d \Omega dE}=\frac{Y_{data} \cdot C_{rad} \cdot
38: C_{bin}}{\Delta E'\cdot \Delta \Omega \cdot
39: N_{scatterers}}
40: \label{cs_method_cors}
41: \end{equation}
42: where $C_{rad}$ is a correction due to radiative effects, $C_{bin}$ is
43: a bin-centering correction, ($\Delta E'\cdot \Delta \Omega$) is the phase space, and $N_{scatterers}$ is the number of
44: scattering centers in the target. The hard part of this process is obtaining
45: the correction factors.
46:
47: The ratio method requires the same correction factors, but the
48: idea behind it is different. The goal is to take a Monte Carlo
49: yield and apply effects that appear in the data, such as radiative
50: corrections or spectrometer acceptance. If the experimental effects
51: are properly simulated, the yields from the Monte Carlo and the
52: experiment will be in agreement and the input cross section model will
53: be a good representation of the measured cross section. This is
54: equivalent to:
55: \begin{equation}
56: \frac{\sigma ^{born}_{data}}{\sigma
57: ^{born}_{model}}=\frac{Y_{data}}{Y_{MC}}
58: \label{cs_method_ratio}
59: \end{equation}
60: where $Y_{data}$ is the charge normalized data yield integrated over
61: the acceptance of the spectrometer, $Y_{MC}$ is the Monte
62: Carlo simulated yield, $\sigma ^{born}_{model}$ is the Born cross
63: section model (description follows in Sec.~\ref{cs_model}), and $\sigma ^{born}_{data}$ is the
64: quantity we're interested in.
65: If the acceptance function, \textit{A}, is known, then the data yield
66: can by simulated via
67: \begin{equation}
68: Y_{MC}=N_{scatterers} \cdot
69: \int _V A(V)\: \sigma^{model}R(V)\:C_{det}\:dV,
70: \label{y_accp}
71: \end{equation}
72: where $A$ is the acceptance function of the
73: spectrometer (discussed in Sec.~\ref{accp_section}), $C_{det}$ are
74: kinematic-dependent detector efficiencies, $\sigma_{model}$
75: is a cross section model, $V$ is the volume of the phase space, and $R$ is radiative effects that are
76: also present in the data.
77:
78: While the first method is more intuitive and easier at the beginning
79: of the analysis process (before a good model of the cross section is
80: obtained), the code associated with it can
81: quickly become extensive, difficult to maintain, and not transparent
82: to the outside observer. Also, the first method assumes that all of
83: the corrections factorize and can be calculated and applied separately. While the cross sections were obtained using
84: both methods and were found to be in excellent agreement, the ratio
85: method is more reliable and the final results quoted will be those
86: obtained with this method.
87: The subsequent sections will outline the
88: procedures followed obtain cross sections and the processes
89: for calculating the various corrections.
90: %
91: % Let's begin with something easier, like yields.
92: %
93: \subsection{Obtaining Yields \label{yields}}
94: The first step to extracting a cross-section is to obtain a
95: charge-normalized data yield.
96: For a given data setting, a list of all the data runs for each target is made and the
97: ntuples are opened and read in one at a time. Each ntuple is cycled
98: through event by event, and electron as well as acceptance cuts are
99: applied. If the event passes all the cuts, it then placed into a 1-D
100: histogram, binned in
101: $x_{bj}$, which is calculated from $\theta$ and $E'$, which in turn are
102: calculated from $x'_{tar}$, $y'_{tar}$, and $\delta$.
103: To obtain a yield for a given
104: run, $i$, the following is used:
105: \begin{equation}
106: Y(i)=\frac{N(i)}{Q(i)*\rm{\textit{Eff}}(i)}
107: \end{equation}
108: where $Q(i)$ is the accumulated charge for a given run and \textit{Eff(i)}
109: is the product of several efficiencies (computer live time, fiducial efficiency,
110: prescale factor). One possibility is to store each run in a separate
111: histogram, which would be combined by way of an
112: error-weighted mean with
113: \begin{equation}
114: Y= \frac{\sum(Y_i/\sigma_i^2)}{\sum1/\sigma_i^2}.
115: \end{equation}
116: Poisson statistics are used to determine the error on the yield, which
117: assumes \mbox{$\sqrt{N} \ll N$}. However, since statistics are limited in
118: some bins, we use a different way of
119: combining runs that is a better application of Poisson statistics when
120: there are few events:
121: \begin{equation}
122: <Y>=\frac{\sum_i N(i)}{\sum_i Q(i)\cdot \rm{\textit{Eff(i)}}}.
123: \end{equation}
124: This method acknowledges the fact that the divisions between runs
125: are arbitrary and treats all the runs at a given setting as one long
126: data taking run. As the counts from each run are placed into the histogram, we also keep a running total of the quantity in the
127: denominator, the efficiency-corrected accumulated charge. The
128: efficiencies included in this total are those that do not vary with
129: kinematics, but are constant for a given run (e.g. dead time, trigger efficiency).
130:
131:
132: %\subsection{Efficiencies}
133: %
134: %The efficiencies that the yields (Sec.~\ref{yields}) need to be
135: %corrected for include electronic and computer dead times, tracking
136: %efficiency, as well as cut efficiencies.
137: %\begin{equation}
138: %Eff{i}=\frac{}{}
139: %\end{equation}
140:
141: \subsection{Electronic Dead Time \label{e_dt}}
142: Once a trigger is formed in the HMS, the gate is activated, and if
143: another event arrives, it will be ignored. This is the main source of
144: electronic dead time.
145: % it takes some time for the
146: %%hardware to process it.
147: % While this is happening, the hardware is busy
148: %and no new triggers can be accepted.
149: %Electronic dead time is a result of the fact that some events do not
150: %produce triggers and aren't
151: %recorded while the hardware is busy processing the previous signal.
152: The events in the HMS occur randomly in time and obey Poisson statistics. For a mean particle
153: rate $R$, the probability for detecting $n$ events in time $t$ is
154: given by:
155: \begin{equation}
156: \label{poisson}
157: P(n)=\frac{(Rt)^n e^{-Rt}}{n!}
158: \end{equation}
159: with the probability distribution for the time between events given
160: by:
161:
162: \begin{equation}
163: P(t)=R \\e^{-Rt}
164: \end{equation}
165:
166: If an event produces a trigger and is accepted, no new events can be
167: accepted for time $\tau$, which is the gate width of the logic
168: signal. For small dead times, the fraction of events that will be
169: detected is the probability that the time between events exceeds
170: $\tau$, which gives us the live time, $t_{live}$:
171:
172: \begin{equation}
173: t_{live}=\frac{N_{triggers}}{N_{total}}=\int^{\infty} _{\tau} Re^{-Rt}\\dt=e^{-R\tau}
174: \end{equation}
175:
176: For E02-019, the gates in the logic modules were 40ns with the
177: exception of the hodoscope discriminators, whose width was 50ns.
178: However, the hodoscopes continue to accept signals even if their
179: outputs are active and extend the output signal to 60ns after the most
180: recent hit. The rates
181: for E02-019 ($R\le$ 1MHz) allow for the live time to be be approximated by the
182: first few terms of the Taylor expansion ($1-R\tau$), giving $R\tau$
183: as the dead time. In this approximation, the dead time is a simple
184: linear function of the gate width and can be calculated by measuring
185: triggers of different gate widths and extrapolating to zero dead
186: time. This allows us to calculate the number of triggers lost in time
187: $\tau$, giving the dead time as:
188: \begin{equation}
189: t_{dead}=\frac{N_{lost}}{N_{total}}=\frac{1}{N_{total}} \cdot
190: \frac{N_1-N_2}{\tau _2 -\tau _1} \cdot \tau ,
191: \end{equation}
192: where $N_1$ and $N_2$ are the numbers of events corresponding to gate
193: widths of 100ns and 200ns ($\tau _1$ and $\tau _2$), and $\tau$ is the
194: hodoscope gate width. $N_1$ was used in the denominator since it was
195: measured directly, and for the small dead times of E02-019, this is a
196: good approximation.
197: The electronic dead time was calculated for each run and was never
198: greater than 0.2$\%$. It was
199: applied as an efficiency (in the form of 1-$R\tau$) to the yield.
200: Since the inefficiency was extremely small, no systematic uncertainty
201: is assigned to it.
202:
203: \subsection{Computer Dead Time\label{comp_dt}}
204:
205: Another source of dead time is the data acquisition system, which
206: cannot accept new events while the previous one is being written. It
207: takes about 350$\mu$s to write the data for an event to storage. When
208: the computer dead time became significant, the prescale factor was increased,
209: so that not all good events were recorded. The computer live time is
210:
211: \begin{equation}
212: t_{c.l.t.}=\frac{N_{triggers}}{N_{pretriggers}},
213: \end{equation}
214: where $N_{pretriggers}$ is the number of
215: good triggers sent to the TS, and $N_{triggers}$ is the number of
216: triggers processed and recorded. The prescale factor was adjusted
217: throughout the data taking to keep the dead time $<$20$\%$. The
218: final correction factor for the computer live time includes the
219: prescale factor.
220:
221: \subsection{Trigger Efficiency \label{trig_eff_section}}
222:
223: Not all good electron events form a trigger since the detectors are
224: not 100$\%$ efficient. The trigger, discussed in Sec.~\ref{trigger},
225: is made up of 2 components, which are ORed together. Both components
226: have particle identification elements in them as well as a scintillator trigger. Since the software cuts in the analysis are
227: more strict than the PID in the trigger, we correct for the
228: inefficiency at the software level. However, there's still an
229: inefficiency associated with the scintillator trigger, SCIN or '3/4'.
230:
231: \begin{figure*}[h!]
232: \center
233: \includegraphics[height=4in,clip]{50639_layer4.ps}
234: \caption['SCIN' efficiency in the S2Y HMS plane.]{The fractional
235: efficiency, '3/4', for the paddles of the fourth layer of the
236: hodoscope detector. The paddle was divided into 12 equally sized
237: regions and the 3/4 efficiency was calculated for each using the
238: same method as for the whole detector. The efficiency shows a
239: fall-off at the edges of the paddles. This effect comes from the attenuation of the
240: signals from events at the other end of the scintillator pads, which
241: are not always detected by the aging PMTs.}
242:
243: \label{trigparam}
244: \end{figure*}
245: The SCIN trigger requires hits in three scintillator planes for a
246: track. The efficiency is calculated separately for each plane as a
247: ratio between the number of events that fired a given plane and the
248: number of events that should have fired it. Each event is examined
249: and if it produced a hit in the other three scintillator planes, the
250: running sum
251: in the denominator is incremented. If that event also fired the plane
252: being examined, then the total in the numerator is also incremented.
253:
254: The efficiency
255: for the entire detector is then determined using the possible permutations
256: of three planes firing. This efficiency was found to be constant at
257: 99.3$\pm$0.05$\%$ for runs at x$<$1 kinematics, and decreased for x$>$1 runs. This trend
258: was investigated and it was determined to be the effect of aging PMTs, as the
259: efficiency was higher in previous years. The efficiency of small
260: regions of the scintillator paddles was calculated and it was found that
261: the center regions are almost 100$\%$ efficient and the efficiency
262: decreases as one moves toward the ends of the paddles (Fig.~\ref{trigparam}). The PMTs at both ends of a
263: given scintillator paddle need to fire in order to count as a hit in
264: that plane. A signal
265: from an event at the end of the paddle gets attenuated on the way to the
266: PMT at the opposite end and the signal may fail to fire the
267: discriminator. The runs at x$>$1 kinematics don't
268: populate the entire focal plane, but rather tend to live near the edges of the
269: acceptance, which is why they have a decreased SCIN
270: efficiency. This event distribution also results in a correlated
271: inefficiency, where a low efficiency from edge events in the 1Y plane
272: is combined with an even lower efficiency for the same events in the
273: 2Y plane, as they are even closer to the edges of the detector.
274: However, since this is a position-dependent effect, it is corrected
275: for with a position-dependent acceptance function described in
276: Sec.~\ref{accp_section}.
277:
278: This overall trigger efficiency is determined by the ELLO leg of the
279: trigger, which has a higher efficiency than the ELHI leg, given that
280: STOF (2/4) and SCIN (3/4) are
281: correlated. Working out an expression for ELLO using the diagram in
282: Fig.~\ref{elreal}, we find that the efficiency is given by
283: ELLO=STOF*PRLO+SCIN*(1-PRLO). The PRLO efficiency was determined to be
284: 99.95$\%$ using elastic scattering data, and calculating the ELLO
285: efficiency run-by-run, it was found be 99.7
286: $\pm$0.1$\%$, which some decrease for $x>1$ similar to the behavior of
287: the SCIN efficiency.
288: %A constant efficiency was applied for runs at x$<$1 kinematics and the'3/4'
289: %efficiency from the scaler files was applied for the x$>$1 runs. The applied
290: %efficiency is never less than 99$\%$.
291:
292:
293: \subsection{Tracking Efficiency \label{tracking_eff_section}}
294:
295: A good event must not only fire the electron trigger, but also
296: reconstruct a good track. In order to count as good, an event must fire the trigger, have
297: 'forward going' time of flight, and have fewer than 15 hits in one of
298: the chambers, but at the same time have enough hits to resolve the
299: left-right ambiguity (not only which wire detected the hit, but which
300: side the particle passed on). Events with more than 15 hits are
301: discounted on the assumption that those hits are generated by
302: electrons scraping the dipole exit window and creating a shower of
303: particles. The tracking efficiency is
304: calculated by taking the number of good tracks formed and dividing by
305: the events with good hits that should have formed tracks.
306:
307: \begin{figure*}[htpt]
308: \center
309: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.7\textwidth]{fide_thesis.ps}
310: \caption[HMS Tracking Efficiency.]{HMS Tracking efficiency as a
311: function of rate in S1X. Lower efficiencies were a result of higher rates.}
312: \label{trackingrate}
313: \end{figure*}
314: The tracking efficiency is calculated by selecting events within a small region
315: around the central ray (fiducial cut) and applying a particle ID
316: cut. The fiducial cut selects events from the region where signal to
317: noise ratio is the largest and the particle ID cut rejects
318: background events. Pions are able to dissipate energy through elastic collisions or
319: molecular excitations in addition to ionization, making their
320: ionization cross section lower than that of electrons. This results in a
321: lower tracking efficiency for pions.
322:
323: Any events within the fiducial region that fire the
324: \v{C}erenkov (0.5 or more photoelectrons) and calorimeter (E$\geq$0.7$\cdot
325: p_{track}$) should form a track. The
326: fraction of those that do form a trigger give the tracking efficiency.
327: The tracking efficiency for E02-019 is shown in
328: Fig.~\ref{trackingrate}. The efficiency is calculated for every run
329: and the yields are corrected for it. A systematic uncertainty of
330: 0.5$\%$ is assigned to the tracking efficiency based on its variation
331: with the event rate.
332:
333: \subsection{Detector Cut efficiencies \label{detector_eff_section}}
334:
335: The \v{C}erenkov and Calorimeter detectors both have momentum
336: dependent efficiencies and corrections must be made for these dependences.
337:
338: The \v{C}erenkov detector has two elliptical mirrors and the region
339: where they meet as well as their edges have lower efficiencies than the rest of the detector.
340: The \v{C}erenkov was
341: run at 0.35 Atm for this experiment to raise the momentum for
342: which the pions fire it (4.2 GeV/c), and the low pressure decreased its efficiency.
343: Data on elastic $ep$ scattering was used to select pure $e^-$ samples to parametrize the \v{C}erenkov efficiency
344: as a function of $\delta$ ($\%$ offset from central momentum,
345: correlated with vertical position) as well as the central momentum
346: setting of the HMS. This correction was applied to each event in the
347: analysis. The shape of the \v{C}erenkov efficiency function is shown
348: in Fig.~\ref{cereff}. A systematic uncertainty of 0.2$\%$ was assigned to this efficiency.
349:
350: The calorimeter cut (E$>$0.7$\times$p the position of the
351: electron peak) is also not a 100$\%$ efficient and its ability to
352: reject pions depends on the energy resolution, hence the central
353: momentum setting of the HMS. From past experiments ~\cite{john_thesis}, the
354: resolution is known to be 6.5$\%$/$\sqrt{E}$ for the HMS calorimeter. The efficiency was found to be fairly
355: stable for higher momenta, but was fit to a second order polynomial
356: for lower momenta. This gave a calorimeter efficiency of
357: $\approx$99.7$\%$ for the lowest momentum setting (0.86 GeV/c). For momenta above 1.7 GeV/c, a constant
358: efficiency of 99.895$\%$ was used. The variation in the calorimeter
359: efficiency over the kinematic range of the data was minimal and
360: therefore no systematic uncertainty was assigned.
361:
362: \begin{figure*}[h!]
363: \center
364: \includegraphics[height=4in,angle=270,clip]{cer_eff_thesis.ps}
365: \caption[HMS \v{C}erenkov efficiency.]{\v{C}erenkov efficiency as a
366: function of $\delta$ ($\Delta p/p$) for a
367: Carbon run at 4.35 GeV/c and the corresponding parametrization.
368: There are three different parametrizations: one for $\delta < $-0.45,
369: another for $\delta >$0.99, and a third for -0.45$\leq \delta \leq$0.99.}
370: \label{cereff}
371: \end{figure*}
372:
373: \subsection{Energy Loss Corrections}
374:
375: The incoming and scattered electrons can lose energy through
376: interactions in the target. The energy of the incoming electron can
377: be lower than the measured beam energy at the vertex, and likewise, the measured
378: energy of the detected electron can be lower than its energy at the
379: vertex. The calculated physics quantities in the analysis engine are
380: corrected for an average energy loss, while spectrometer-related
381: quantities are not. For example, $x$ is calculated using the
382: corrected incoming and scattered electron energies, but if one
383: performs the physics analysis in terms of $\delta$ (a common
384: practice), then any quantities calculated from it (i.e. not using the
385: ones already in the engine) need to be
386: corrected for energy loss.
387:
388: The energy loss is a result of the charged particle interacting with
389: matter. The incoming electron loses energy in the cryotarget cell
390: walls (for example) and in the target material it traverses before
391: the scattering vertex. The scattered particle passes through the
392: remainder of the target material, which for solid targets depends on
393: the scattering angle, then the target-chamber exit window, the air gap
394: and finally, the entrance window to the spectrometer. Since the
395: energy loss occur after the beam energy measurement and before the
396: scattered particle is detected, an energy loss correction must be applied.
397:
398: The energy loss is calculated by using the Bethe-Bloch equation~\cite{Leo:1987a}, and the energy loss is parametrized in terms
399: of momentum transfer with the assumption that the scattering event takes place in the center of the target.
400:
401: One energy loss correction was applied to the beam energy for the entire
402: experiment since it was found to be fairly constant. That correction
403: is 1 MeV, giving a beam energy of 5.766 GeV. The corrections made to
404: the energy of the scattered electron were of the same order. The
405: corrected momentum was calculated since some of the efficiency
406: corrections are parametrized as functions of momentum. The effect on the
407: cross-section was negligible.
408: %
409: %
410: \subsection{Monte Carlo Yield \label{accp_section}}
411: %
412: %
413: There are two analysis procedures needed to account for the finite acceptance of the HMS:
414: software cuts and a model of the spectrometer acceptance. The first method
415: involves cutting on the spectrometer quantities listed in
416: Table.~\ref{accpcuts}. These cuts are selected to reject events that
417: did not originate in the target and also to select a region where
418: the reconstruction matrix elements are well known.
419: \begin{table}[h!]
420: \begin{center}
421: \vspace*{0.25in}
422:
423: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
424: \hline
425: Variable & Cut \\
426:
427: \hline\hline
428: abs($\delta$) & $\leq$ 8 $\%$\\
429: abs(y'$_{tar}$) & $\leq$ 0.12 \\
430: abs(x'$_{tar}$) & $\leq$ 0.04 \\
431: \hline
432: \end{tabular}
433: \caption{Acceptance Cuts used in the analysis for both data and MC.}
434: \label{accpcuts}
435: \end{center}
436: \end{table}
437:
438: For a model of spectrometer acceptance, a simulation of electrons
439: going through the HMS is required. In the simplest picture, spectrometer acceptance can be defined as the
440: probability that an electron event within a certain phase space
441: (defined by $\delta$, $x_{tar}'$ and $y_{tar}'$) will be
442: accepted.
443: %
444: %\begin{equation}
445: %\rm{{Acceptance}}=\frac{\rm{{Particles}} \: \rm{{In}}}{\rm{{Particles}} \: \rm{{Out}}}
446: %\end{equation}
447: Since the HMS can only detect events within a limited range around the
448: central momentum (ideally, $\pm$15$\%$) and angle setting ($\pm$30~mr), most of the events will be lost at
449: the edges due to things like scraping the dipole upon exit or hitting
450: the collimator. This is modeled with a Monte Carlo, with the acceptance
451: being defined as the number of particles that are successfully
452: transported through a model of the spectrometer.
453:
454: The Hall C single arm Monte Carlo generates events uniformly distributed in
455: $x,y,z, \delta, \theta$, and $\phi$. The particles are then
456: transported through the magnets of the HMS, which are modeled using
457: the COSY INFINITY program. Using a list of magnet parameters such as
458: their positions, dimensions and field maps, COSY generates a forward
459: matrix that projects rays at the target to the focal
460: point. The position of each event is calculated for several points:
461: beginning and end of each magnet as well as position 2/3 of the way
462: through the first two quadrupole magnets.
463: The tracks in the focal
464: plane are recorded for all particles which make it all the way through
465: the detector stack. The focal plane quantities are determined using the target quantities in the following way:
466: \begin{equation}
467: a_{fp}=\sum_{i,j,k,l,m} F^x_{ijklm} (x_{tar})^i (x'_{tar})^k
468: (y_{tar})^j (y'_{tar})^l\delta ^m\;\;\rm{for}\;\;(1 \leq i+j+k+l+m \leq N)
469: \end{equation}
470: where N is the order of the expansion (6 for the HMS) and $ F^x_{ijklm}$ is one
471: column of the forward transport matrix (there are 4 total, one for
472: each focal plane variable).
473:
474: In reality, the cross section (and the acceptance function) is a
475: function of 6 variables: $x$, $y$, $z$, $x'$, $y'$, and $\delta$.
476: However, it is possible to simplify it by averaging over the behavior
477: of several variables. For example, we can average over $x, y,$
478: (related to the size of the rastered beam) and
479: $z$ (related to the target length) for a given target. We simplify further by producing a separate
480: acceptance ntuple for every setting of the HMS and each target geometry. Since the central angle of the spectrometer is fixed
481: for a given setting, $x'$ and $y'$ can be converted to the lab angles,
482: and integrated over $\phi$,
483: so that finally, A=A($\delta$, $\theta$). In order to reproduce the
484: measured yield, it's necessary to calculate the number of scattering
485: centers for a given target, $N_{scatterers}$, and the acceptance integral must be weighted by the cross
486: section and detector inefficiencies, giving:
487: \begin{equation}
488: Y_{MC}=N_{scatterers}\int {A(\delta, \theta) \: \sigma^{rad}_{model}(\delta, \theta)\:C_{det}\:p_{HMS}\:d \delta d\Omega},
489: \label{y_accp_2}
490: \end{equation}
491: where the subscript \textit{model} and superscript \textit{rad} denote the radiated model cross section
492: evaluated at a given point, $p_{HMS}d\delta$ is equivalent to $dE'$, and $C_{det}$ is the combined
493: kinematic-dependent detector efficiency, which includes calorimeter
494: and \v{C}erenkov efficiencies.
495:
496: The shape of the acceptance function is shown in Fig.~\ref{accept} as
497: a function of $\delta$ and $y' _{tar}$. The variable $y' _{tar}$ is often used in place of
498: $\theta_{lab}$, since it's the arctan of the angle the electron
499: track makes with the central ray of the HMS in the horizontal plane. The complete definition of $\theta _{lab}$,
500: or just $\theta$, is:
501: \begin{equation}
502: \theta _{lab} =\frac{\cos\: (\theta _{HMS})+y' _{tar}\:sin\:(\theta
503: _{HMS})}{\sqrt{1+x'^2 _{tar}+y'^2 _{tar}}}
504: \label{theta_lab}
505: \end{equation}
506: where $\theta _{HMS}$ is the central angle of the spectrometer. The
507: complete definition of $\theta$ was used in this analysis, since at
508: small angles, the contribution from $x' _{tar}$ cannot be ignored.
509: \begin{figure*}[h!]
510: \center
511: \includegraphics[height=4in]{acceptance_hms.ps}
512: \caption[HMS Acceptance.]{Shape of the acceptance of the HMS from Monte Carlo in $\delta$ and
513: $y' _{tar}$ (unweighted MC counts are shown on the vertical axis). The variable $y' _{tar}$ is often used in place of
514: $\theta_{lab}$ as it is the slope of the
515: track in the $y$-direction (horizontal) and is therefore the arctan of the
516: angle the track makes with the central angle of the HMS. This is
517: not a good practice for small angles, where the contribution from
518: $x' _{tar}$ to the correct calculated scattering angle is non-negligible.}
519: \label{accept}
520: \end{figure*}
521: %We generate a MC ntuple with the same $E'$, $\theta_c$, target, and
522: %other inputs as the data and bin
523: %Then, we obtain an effective $d\Omega$ for each $x_{bj}, \theta$ bin using
524: %a Jacobian to convert the width of the $x$ bin into units of
525: %$\delta$. However, since the final cross section is computed with
526: %respect to dE$'$, the same Jacobian is needed again to convert bin
527: %sizes, and it cancels out in the final result.
528: %The measured cross-section in Eq.~\ref{y_accp} cannot be directly
529: % extracted, but we can obtain an average cross section over the effective
530: % solid angle of the spectrometer.
531: %\begin{equation}
532: %\end{equation}
533: % The effective solid angle is given by:
534: %\begin{equation}
535: %\Delta\Omega_{eff}=\int {A \: d\Omega} =\frac{N_{acc}}{N^{tot}_{gen}}\cdot\Delta\Omega^{tot}_{gen}
536: %\end{equation}
537: %While the data are not
538: %necessarily binned in variables of Eq.~\ref{y_accp_2} ($\delta, \theta$), it is more intuitive to think
539: %of the acceptance function using them, since counts are generated
540: %uniformly in these variables (not exactly the case in $\theta$, but
541: %the error associated with this approximation is negligible given
542: %enough generated counts, i.e.$\sqrt{N_{gen}}<<N_{gen}$).
543:
544: Binning the unweighted MC counts in the exact same manner as the data, automatically
545: generates the acceptance function.
546: %The unweighted MC counts are binned in the exact same manner as the data, automatically
547: %generating the acceptance function. For a given bin, the simulated
548: The weighted, simulated yield in a particular bin is given by:
549: \begin{equation}
550: Y_{MC}=N_{scatterers}\sum_{events}{ \sigma^{rad}_{model}(\delta, \theta)\:C_{det}\:p_{HMS}\:
551: (\Delta \delta \Delta \Omega)_{bin}},
552: \label{y_accp_2}
553: \end{equation}
554: where $\Delta \delta \Delta\Omega_{bin}=(\Delta \delta \Delta
555: \Omega)^{gen}_{bin}/(N^{bin}_{gen})$ represents the relative phase space for a
556: given event. The generated solid angle depends on the generation
557: limits in $x' _{tar}$ and
558: $y' _{tar}$, the in- and out-of-plane angles. For this analysis, 5x10$^6$
559: events were generated for each acceptance ntuple, with the
560: generation limits of $\delta\pm$15$\%$, $x' _{tar}\pm100$~mr, and $y'
561: _{tar}\pm50$~mr.
562: %The shape of the acceptance in
563: %$\delta$ and $y' _{tar}$ can be seen in Fig. ~\ref{accept}.
564:
565: It was discovered, when combining data from adjacent HMS momentum
566: settings, that the acceptance function does not
567: perfectly model the acceptance of the detector and there's an
568: additional $\delta$-dependent effect. A polynomial fit from a
569: previous experiment ~\cite{vladas_thesis} was used since it described the data well
570: (Fig.~\ref{vladas}). This correction was applied on an event-by-event
571: basis in the Monte Carlo. A 1$\%$ scale and a 1$\%$ relative
572: uncertainty were applied to the acceptance based on
573: experience from previous experiments in the Hall.
574:
575: \begin{figure*}[h!]
576: \center
577: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{accp_vladas.ps}
578: \caption[Data/MC vs. $\delta$.]{Ratio of Data to Monte Carlo vs. $\delta$. This is a
579: residual acceptance effect, independent of momentum or angle with 2
580: fits, one from our experiment, and the other from a different
581: analysis~\cite{vladas_thesis}.}
582: \label{vladas}
583: \end{figure*}
584:
585: \subsection{Bin-Centering\label{bc_section}}
586: The data in this experiment were taken at several angles. Because the HMS
587: has a finite acceptance
588: around the central angle setting, the counts have some distribution in
589: $\theta_{lab}$ for a given $x$
590: bin. This means that the measured data yield in any given
591: ($x,\theta$) bin is an average value rather than the yield at the
592: center of the bin. These are not the same unless the cross section has
593: a linear dependence on $\theta$. Instead of
594: correcting the data and moving each event to the center of its bin
595: using a cross section model, the correction was applied to the MC. By
596: putting in a cross section model with the same angular dependence as
597: the data into Eq.~\ref{y_accp_2}, the simulated yield is averaged
598: over the acceptance in the same manner as the data.
599:
600: %\begin{equation}
601: %C_{bin}=\frac{\sigma^{rad}_{model}(x_c,\theta_c)}{\sigma^{rad}_{model}(x,\theta)}
602: %\end{equation}
603: %which moves the event to the central $\theta$ and $x$ of the bin.
604: %The radiated cross section is evaluated at the center of the
605: %bin and also at the $x$, $\theta$ values of the event for the
606: %numerator and the denominator, respectively.
607: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
608: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{bctest_all_2.ps}}
609: \caption[Systematic uncertainty due to BC model.]{The top left plot
610: shows the data to model ratio before the bin-centering test. The
611: top right and bottom left plots show the effect on that ratio if the
612: model is multiplied by $x$ in one case and $\sqrt{Q^2}/2$ in the other
613: case. The scale factor is a gross overestimate of the disagreement
614: between data and optimal model. The bottom right plot shows ratio of the
615: experimental cross sections extracted with the altered model to those
616: extracted with the optimal model. There are three HMS settings in
617: the 18$^{\circ}$ data set, and the features at the edges of the
618: settings for the $\sqrt{Q^2}/2$ test are a result of the data being
619: binned in $x$, where the edge bins do not include events from the
620: whole acceptance.}
621: \label{bc_test}
622: \end{figure*}
623:
624: To determine the systematic uncertainty associated with the choice of
625: the bin-centering model, it was varied and the experimental cross
626: sections were recalculated. The input model was altered in two ways
627: for this test: in the first, the calculated cross section at each point was multiplied by $x$; in the
628: second, it was multiplied by $\sqrt{Q^2}/2$. Fig.~\ref{bc_test} shows the
629: result for 18$^{\circ}$ deuterium data. Since the input model was
630: scaled by more than the disagreement between the original cross
631: section model and the data, this variation in the extracted cross
632: section is an overestimate. A conservative uncertainty of 0.5$\%$ in
633: the bin-centering model was assigned.
634:
635:
636: \subsection{Radiative Corrections \label{rc_section}}
637:
638: %This needs more details
639: The measured cross sections also need to be corrected for effects
640: from internal and external radiative processes. Internal radiative processes
641: include vacuum polarization, vertex corrections, and internal
642: bremsstrahlung. An electron can also lose energy through
643: bremsstrahlung while passing through the target, which is an external
644: effect. Fig.~\ref{rcdiagram} illustrates external bremsstrahlung. No correction was made for the nuclear elastic contribution.
645: %
646: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
647: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=1.5in,clip]{radcor_both.epsi}}
648: \caption[Radiative Processes.]{The incoming and/or scattered electron can lose energy through
649: bremstrhalung. The radiative corrections procedure restores events
650: that lose energy in this way to the correct data bin since the event
651: may have ended up in a higher or lower energy bin, depending on when
652: it underwent bremstrhalung.}
653: \label{rcdiagram}
654: \end{figure*}
655:
656: The challenge that radiative processes present can be understood by
657: examining Fig.~\ref{rcdiagram}. In order to calculate the
658: contribution of, for example, the process depicted on the left hand
659: side in the figure, the cross section must be known for beam energies
660: that are lower than that of the experiment. Similarly, for the
661: figure on the right hand side, the cross section must be known for
662: scattered energies greater than those of the experiment. This
663: requires a realistic cross section model, which was developed for this
664: analysis and is described in Sec.~\ref{cs_model}.
665:
666: In this analysis, the radiative correction was originally calculated with the method described by Stein
667: in~\cite{Stein:1975yy} using the peaking approximation method of
668: Mo and Tsai ~\cite{Mo:1968cg}. However, this approximation does not
669: do a good job for thick targets at low $x$ and the full 2-D integral
670: needs to be calculated.
671:
672: The approach adopted was one described in detail by Dasu~\cite{dasu_thesis} and used to do radiative corrections for SLAC
673: experiments. In this approach, a complete calculation of Mo and
674: Tsai's formula for external effects is done. An equivalent radiator is used to
675: take into account materials before and after the target, such as air,
676: aluminum target exit window, mylar and kevlar entrance and exit
677: windows for the magnets. Unlike in Dasu's analysis, where the Bardin
678: prescription ~\cite{Akhundov:1977bh} is used for the internal
679: corrections, Mo and Tsai's approach is used in this analysis.
680:
681: %\begin{equation}
682: %\sigma _{rad}=\frac{\sigma ^{i+e}_{MT}}{\sigma ^{i}_{MT}} \sigma ^{i}_{Bardin}
683: %\end{equation}
684: %The correction to
685: %the measured cross section is calculated in the same manner as the
686: %bin-centering% correction, i.e. as a weight to each event.
687: The radiated and Born versions of the model cross section
688: are used to form the correction factor:
689: \begin{equation}
690: C_{rad}=\frac{\sigma^{rad}_{model}(x,\theta)}{\sigma^{born}_{model}(x,\theta)}=\frac{\sigma_{MT}^{i+e}(x,\theta)}{\sigma^{born}_{model}(x,\theta)}
691: \end{equation}
692: The subscript \textit{MT} denotes Mo and Tsai's equivalent radiator
693: calculation, and the superscripts \textit{i} and \textit{e} refer to
694: the internal and external radiative corrections, respectively.
695: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
696: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=270,width=.9\textwidth]{rc_cor_thesis_ps.epsi}}
697: \caption[Radiative Corrections for $^2$H and $^{197}$.]{Radiative Corrections for
698: $^2$H (right) and $^{197}Au$ (left) at all angle settings. The y-axis shows the size of the
699: radiative correction, which is given by the ratio $\sigma
700: _{born}/\sigma _{rad}$.}
701: \label{rcsize}
702: \end{figure*}
703: A cross section model is used to generate a list of Born and radiated
704: cross section values in increments
705: 10 MeV for each central angle setting of the HMS.
706: The correction for each data point is interpolated from the two
707: closest points and is applied as a correction to the binned, radiated
708: cross sections.
709:
710: The size of the correction can be seen if Fig.~\ref{rcsize}.
711: where the ratio of the extracted cross sections with and without
712: radiative corrections is shown.
713:
714: To determine the systematic uncertainty from the choice of the
715: cross section model used to calculate the radiative correction, the
716: model was scaled by $x$ in one case, $\sqrt{(Q^2)}/2$ in another case,
717: (as was done for the bin-centering uncertainty)
718: and the correction recalculated. At low values of $x$, the radiative
719: correction is progressively more sensitive to the quasielastic tail
720: with increasing values of Q$^2$. The cross section model was
721: calculated for the kinematics of previous experiments using the
722: quasielastic archive~\cite{Benhar:2006er} and found to be in good
723: agreement in the region around the quasielastic peak down to Q$^2$
724: values of $\approx 0.5$ GeV$^2$. To determine the uncertainty associated with the quasielastic tail,
725: the quasielastic contribution alone was scaled by 10$\%$ (somewhat
726: higher than the level of disagreement between our cross section and
727: the quasielastic archive) and the correction
728: factor recalculated.
729:
730: A systematic uncertainty of 1$\%$ due to the radiative correction
731: model is applied for the entire kinematic range. At low $x$, this is
732: the combined effect of rescaling the entire model and the
733: quasielastic tail alone, and for $x>1$, the uncertainty is the result of the
734: model rescaling alone. An additional uncertainty of 1$\%$ is included
735: due to the limitations inherent in the calculation, for a total of
736: 1.4$\%$ systematic uncertainty.
737: %
738: %
739: \subsection{Corrected Cross Section}
740: %
741: %
742: %In Section~\ref{accp_section}, we saw that
743: Once the measured data yield and the simulated MC yield have been
744: obtained, the experimental Born cross section can be extracted through:
745: %To restore
746: %it to the ``true'' cross section value, we apply the
747: %radiative and bin-centering corrections discussed above:
748: %\begin{equation}
749: %\sigma(x_{bj}, \theta)=\bar{\sigma} _{data} \cdot C_{rad} \cdot C_{bin}
750: %\end{equation}
751: %Writing them out explicitly to see what can be simplified:
752: %\begin{equation}
753: %\sigma(x_{bj}, \theta)=\bar{\sigma}_{data} \cdot \frac{\int{\sigma
754: % _{born}A(\delta,\theta) d\Omega}}{\int{\sigma
755: % _{rad}A(\delta,\theta) d\Omega}} \cdot \frac{\sigma _{born}
756: % (x_{bj},\theta)}{\frac{\int {\sigma _{born} A(\delta, \theta) d\Omega}}{\int {A(\delta, \theta) d\Omega}}}
757: %\end{equation}
758: %The two instances of the $\sigma _{born}$ integrals cancel out and
759: %$\bar {\sigma} _{data}$ and the integral over the acceptance can be
760: %replaced with $Y_{data}$, as per Eq.~\ref{ave_sigma}.
761: % as can be seen in Eq.~\ref{y_accp}.
762: %The
763: %simplified version then reads as:
764: \begin{equation}
765: \sigma(x, \theta _c)=\frac{Y_{data}}{N_{scatterers}\int{\sigma
766: ^{rad}_{model}(x,\theta)\:C_{det}\:A(x,\theta) d\Omega}} \cdot
767: \sigma ^{born}_{model} (x,\theta _c)
768: \label{final_answer}
769: \end{equation}
770: where the denominator is the Monte Carlo yield, previously described
771: in Sec.~\ref{accp_section}, and the subscript \textit{c} denotes the central
772: angle setting of the HMS. If the Monte Carlo perfectly describes
773: the spectrometer acceptance and the cross section model used as a
774: weight for the simulated yield agrees well with the data, the ratio in
775: Eq.~\ref{final_answer} should be about 1. An example of data and MC yields is shown
776: in Fig. ~\ref{data_mc_yields}, where the agreement between the two
777: is excellent in the $\delta$-region to which this analysis is confined.
778:
779:
780: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
781: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=3.5in,clip]{data_mc_delta.ps}}
782: \caption[Data and MC yields for Carbon, 40$^{\circ}$, p$_{HMS}$=1.14
783: GeV/c.]{Data and MC yields for Carbon, 40$^{\circ}$, p$_{HMS}$=1.14
784: GeV/c, arbitrary units. The vertical lines at $\pm$9 represent the
785: software cut applied to the data and MC. The discontinuity at $\delta \approx$0
786: is the result of a region of decreased efficiency in the
787: \v{C}erenkov. This region corresponds to the overlap between the two
788: mirrors and is well reproduced in the MC.}
789: \label{data_mc_yields}
790: \end{figure*}
791: %
792: \subsection{Coulomb Corrections \label{cc_section}}
793:
794: It is also important to correctly treat the Coulomb distortion of the
795: electron wave function by the electrostatic field of the nucleus. The
796: nucleus has two effects on the electron: it is accelerated due to
797: the attractive force when in close proximity to the nucleus,
798: increasing the electron's momentum and also, the attractive force focuses the electron wave function.
799:
800: A distorted wave Born approximation (DWBA) calculation using Dirac wave
801: functions is the correct approach ~\cite{Kim:1996ua} to the problem but it's not a practical solution given the computational load
802: involved. Instead, a local Effective Momentum Approximation (EMA) is used ~\cite{Aste:2005wc}.
803:
804: The first effect is quantified by calculating the shift in the
805: momentum due to the acceleration by the nucleus. The enhancement of the momenta is given by: $k' _f=k_f+\Delta
806: k$ and $k' _i=k_i+\Delta k$, with $\Delta k=-.775V_0/c$, where
807: $V_0$ is the potential energy of the electron in the center of the
808: nucleus. $V_0$ is the lowest order of the electrostatic potential inside a charged
809: sphere and is given by
810: \begin{equation}
811: V_0=\frac{-3\alpha(Z-1)}{2R}, \nonumber
812: \end{equation}
813: where $R$ is the
814: radius of the nucleus. Note that $Z-1$ is used instead of the $Z$ in
815: the given reference, since we're calculating acceleration due to the
816: A-1 nucleus. The nuclear radii used for the different targets are
817: given in Table~\ref{coulomb_radii}. The extra factor of 0.775
818: ~\cite{Aste:2005wc} comes
819: from the fact that the scattering is distributed over the volume
820: of the nucleus and the potential needs to be modified to reflect the
821: average potential inside a homogeneously charged sphere.
822:
823: \begin{table}[h!]
824: \begin{center}
825: \vspace*{0.25in}
826:
827: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
828: \hline
829: Target & Radius (fm) \\
830: \hline
831: $^3$He & 1.96\\
832: $^4$He & 1.67\\
833: $^9$Be & 2.70\\
834: $^{12}$C & 2.89\\
835: $^{63}$Cu & 4.60\\
836: $^{197}$Au & 6.55\\
837: \hline
838: \end{tabular}
839: \caption{RMS charge radii. For heavy targets, the radius is given by
840: $R=1.1A^{1/3}+0.86A^{-1/3}$ and previously determined values are used for helium ~\cite{morton:034502}.}
841: \label{coulomb_radii}
842: \end{center}
843: \end{table}
844:
845: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
846: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=270, width=.8\textwidth]{cc_cor_18_all_thesis.ps}}
847: \caption[Coulomb Corrections at 18$^{\circ}$.]{Coulomb correction factor for all targets at 18 degrees. The
848: dip around $x_{bj}=0.9$ is a result of a transition between two
849: different models for the inelastic cross section. }
850: \label{coulcor}
851: \end{figure*}
852:
853: The second effect is the focusing of the electron wave function by
854: the attractive potential of the nucleus and is accounted for with a
855: ``focusing'' factor, which enters into the cross section quadratically.
856: The wave functions of incoming and outgoing electrons are both
857: enhanced, but the artificial enhancement of the phase space in
858: the shifted cross section cancels the focusing factor of the outgoing electron~\cite{Aste:dearjohn}.
859: The remaining focusing factor is given by $(k'
860: _i/k_i)^2$.
861:
862: The complete form of the Coulomb correction is then:
863: \begin{equation}
864: C_{coulomb}=\frac{\sigma_{born}(k_i,k_f)}{\sigma_{born}(k' _i, k' _f)} \frac{1}{(k'_i/k_i)^2}
865: \end{equation}
866: The size of the correction is shown in Fig.~\ref{coulcor} for all
867: targets at 18$^{\circ}$. The correction is largest for the heaviest target, which for E02-019
868: is $^{197}$Au, where it reaches 10$\%$ for 18$^{\circ}$, and 20$\%$
869: for 50$^{\circ}$.
870:
871: There is a 10$\%$ uncertainty associated with the Coulomb potential,
872: which needs to be included in the measured cross section. To
873: determine the contribution from this uncertainty to the cross section,
874: the coulomb corrections were evaluated for each target and kinematic
875: setting with a 10$\%$ shift applied to the potential. The ratio of
876: this shifted correction to the normal correction was parametrized as a
877: function of $x$ for each $\theta _{HMS}$ setting and for each target.
878: Evaluation of this parametrization at any data point gives the
879: systematic uncertainty associated with this correction. The largest
880: corrections and therefore, the largest uncertainties are for
881: $^{197}$Au, where the uncertainty at $x>$1 reaches 0.5$\%$ and 2$\%$
882: for 18$^{\circ}$ and 22$^{\circ}$, respectively.
883:
884: \subsection{Cross Section Model \label{cs_model}}
885:
886: The three sets of corrections described above all require an input
887: model of the cross section. For E02-019, the cross-section model
888: consists of 2 parts: a quasi-elastic
889: contribution and a deep inelastic contribution.
890:
891: The quasi-elastic contribution is calculated from a scaling function,
892: $F(y)$, the off-shell electron-nucleon cross-section, and a kinematic
893: factor, $K$.
894: \begin{equation}
895: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega
896: d\nu}=F(y)\cdot(Z\cdot\sigma_p+N\cdot\sigma_n)\cdot K
897: \end{equation}
898: The scaling function $F(y)$ used for $^2$H, a variation of the form
899: used in~\cite{CiofidegliAtti:1997km}, is given by:
900: \begin{equation}
901: F(y)=(f_0-B)\cdot\frac{\alpha ^2 e^{-(ay)^2}}{\alpha ^2+y^2}+B e^{-b|y|}
902: \label{scaling}
903: \end{equation}
904: This form was modified for heavier targets to get:
905: \begin{equation}
906: F(y)=(f_0-B)\cdot\frac{\alpha ^2 e^{-(ay)^2}}{\alpha ^2+y^2}+B e^{-(by)^2}
907: \label{nuc_scaling}
908: \end{equation}
909: where the parameters $a$, $b$, $f_0$, $B$, and $\alpha$ are fit to the
910: $F(y)$ extracted from the data for each target (see Table~\ref{fit_params}). This is done by
911: taking the data cross section, subtracting the inelastic contribution
912: (calculated using the inelastic part of the model), and dividing out
913: the kinematic factor and the electron-nucleon cross section, which is
914: described in Sec.~\ref{yscaling}. After
915: the fit, the iterated model was used as the input to the cross section
916: extraction and the process was repeated until good agreement between
917: the data and the model was achieved for all settings.
918: \begin{table}[h!]
919: \begin{center}
920: \vspace*{0.25in}
921:
922: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
923: \hline
924: & $^2$H & $^3$He & $^4$He & $^9$Be &$^{12}$C & $^{63}$Cu & $^{197}$Au \\
925: \hline
926: f$_0$ &8.742e-03&5.309e-03&4.020e-03&3.481e-03&3.182e-03&2.874e-03&2.642e-03\\
927: \hline
928: B &8.239e-04&2.184e-03&1.345e-03&1.161e-03&1.359e-03&8.866e-04&7.632e-04\\
929: \hline
930: a &7.727e-03&2.886e-03&2.699e-03&3.120e-03&3.027e-03&3.096e-03&3.065e-03\\
931: \hline
932: b &9.394e-03&1.035e-02&7.494e-03&7.840e-03&7.050e-03&7.094e-03&6.768e-03\\
933: \hline
934: $\alpha$ & 45.3& 64.2&100.2&110.9&137.2&132.4&132.4\\
935: \hline
936: \end{tabular}
937: \caption{F(y) fit parameters as determined by fitting
938: the experimental scaling function to the form of Eqs.~\ref{scaling}
939: and~\ref{nuc_scaling}.}
940: \label{fit_params}
941: \end{center}
942: \end{table}
943:
944: An additional correction to the quasi-elastic model was introduced.
945: Since the quasi-elastic model is based on $y$-scaling, it doesn't work
946: perfectly for the largest negative $y$ values, where the low $Q^2$
947: data is affected by final state interactions (FSIs) and doesn't
948: scale. A polynomial fit for each target was done for the
949: ratio of the data to the model at large negative $y$'s ($x_{bj}>1.4$) to account for this effect.
950:
951: The inelastic cross section is calculated slightly differently for
952: over the range of $x$. For $x<0.8$, parametrizations~\cite{Bosted:f2stuff} of the proton and neutron structure functions
953: ($F^{n}_2$ and $F^{p}_2$) are used and they're smeared using the
954: momentum distribution $n(k)$ which is determined from the derivative
955: of $F(y)$ used in the quasi-elastic model cross section via Eq.~\ref{fy_nk_simple}. The
956: inelastic cross section is obtained using the resulting nuclear
957: structure functions through Eq.~\ref{inelastic_sigma_simple}. A polynomial
958: correction function is then applied to the result to reproduce the
959: shape of the data. This function is different for every target.
960: %
961: %
962: %
963: \begin{figure*}[htpt]
964: \center
965: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{data_thesis_model_pieces_sample_alt.epsi}
966: \caption[Data and model cross sections for $^2$H, $^{12}$C, and
967: $^{197}$Au at 18$^{\circ}$ and
968: 32$^{\circ}$.]{Data and model cross section for $^2$H (top),
969: $^{12}$C (middle), and
970: $^{197}$Au (bottom) at
971: 18$^{\circ}$ (left) and 32$^{\circ}$ (right) . The model cross
972: section is separated into the inelastic and quasi-elastic pieces to
973: show their relative contributions. The rise of the data cross section
974: around $x\approx$ 2 for $^2$H is the result of elastic electron-deuteron
975: scattering contribution.}
976: \label{ld2_data_model}
977: \end{figure*}
978: In the $x_{bj}>0.9$ region, only the smearing prescription is used with the
979: corresponding $n(k)$ for a given target. For the region where $0.8 < x_{bj} < 0.9$, a weighted average of the
980: two prescriptions is used so that the transition between the two regions
981: is continuous. Once a good model was obtained
982: for the quasielastic region, it was subtracted from the measured data
983: cross section and the resulting inelastic data was compared to the
984: inelastic model. A residual slope in the inelastic data/model ratio was found for
985: $x>0.9$ for all angles, and it was corrected for with a straight line
986: fit.
987:
988: The data as well as model cross sections, including quasielastic and
989: inelastic contributions, are shown in Fig.~\ref{ld2_data_model} for several targets at 18$^{\circ}$
990: and 32$^{\circ}$ .
991:
992: %\end{document}
993:
994: