1: \section{Extraction of ${\bf d\sigma / d\Omega / dE^{\prime} }$}
2:
3: The Hall C event reconstruction code provides tracking and particle
4: identification (PID) information for each event. It also measures detector
5: efficiencies and analyzes information from the scaler readouts used to measure
6: the total beam current for the run and to determine the deadtimes and
7: efficiencies needed to generate an absolute cross section from the measured
8: counts. The analysis code is described in detail in appendix
9: \ref{app_engine}. After the run has been analyzed, separate analysis code
10: applies tracking and particle identification cuts and detector efficiency
11: corrections. In addition, several corrections must be applied to convert
12: between measured counts and cross section. The counts must be corrected for
13: spectrometer acceptance, dead time in the data acquisition, and inefficiency
14: in the hardware trigger, tracking algorithm, and cuts. The measured beam
15: current and target thickness is used to convert the measured counts to cross
16: sections. In order to extract the physics cross section, the measured cross
17: section must be corrected for radiative effects.
18:
19: \subsection{Pre-reconstruction Cuts.}
20:
21: Before the events are reconstructed, the TDCs that record the intermediate
22: trigger signals are examined, and events are rejected unless they contain
23: both a \v{C}erenkov signal (CER) and a shower counter signal (PRLO, SHLO,
24: or PRHI). See section \ref{sec_electrig} for the definition of the trigger
25: signals. This effectively modifies the online trigger from an OR of the
26: two detectors to an AND. The shower counter signal required in the
27: calorimeter based trigger (ELHI) sometimes has an electron efficiency as low
28: as 90\% (at the lowest momentum settings). However, it requires that the
29: total energy be above a fixed threshold (SHLO) and that the energy in the
30: first layer be above a fixed threshold (PRHI). It is this `high' threshold on
31: the first layer energy that causes most of the inefficiency for electrons in
32: the ELHI trigger. By requiring only one of the three signals (SHLO, PRHI, or
33: PRLO, which is a lower threshold on the pre-radiator energy), the efficiency
34: becomes very high ($>$99\%).
35:
36: This offline `trigger modification' is done for two reasons. First, in order
37: to insure that the trigger efficiency would be high even if one of the
38: detectors was not working well, the thresholds were set relatively low.
39: This limited the online pion rejection. By modifying the trigger requirements
40: before reconstructing the event, we can reduce the size of our data set by
41: a factor of two. This significantly reduces the time required to analyze the
42: data set.
43:
44: In addition to reducing the data set, this cut has an additional benefit in
45: the SOS. In the SOS \v{C}erenkov signal, there was significant noise in the
46: ADC readout which limits the offline pion rejection (see section
47: \ref{subsec_pidcuts}). Because the noise was in the ADC, the trigger signal
48: was not affected, and the pion rejection is not reduced. Therefore, we use a
49: combination of the trigger signal (a $\sim$1.7 photoelectron on the clean
50: signal) and a cut on the \v{C}erenkov ADC (3.3 photoelectrons on the noisy
51: signal). The online cut rejects pions at $\sim$250:1, and the offline cut
52: rejects pions at $\sim$170:1. The combined efficiency is estimated to be
53: between 300:1 and 380:1, and we assume 300:1 when estimating the pion
54: contamination. The worst case pion contamination after the final particle
55: identification cuts is $\sim$3\%, and only occurs for the largest angle data,
56: where the statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties due to other
57: backgrounds are their largest ($>$10\%).
58:
59: \subsection{Tracking Cuts}\label{sec_trackcuts}
60:
61: The event reconstruction code generates information for the tracks at the
62: focal plane, and reconstructed tracks at the target. The focal plane
63: quantities are the $x$ and $y$ positions and slopes of the track at the focal
64: plane ($x_{fp},y_{fp},x^\prime_{fp}$,and $y^\prime_{fp}$), in the
65: coordinate system defined in section \ref{subsection_hms} ($\hat{z}$ is
66: parallel to the central ray, $\hat{x}$ points downwards, and $\hat{y}$ points
67: left when viewing the spectrometer from the target). The reconstructed values
68: are $\delta$, $y_{tar}$, $x^\prime_{tar}$, and $y^\prime_{tar}$, where $\delta
69: = (p_{recon}-p_0)/p_0$, with $p_0$ equal to the spectrometer central momentum,
70: $y_{tar}$ is the horizontal position at the target plane (perpendicular to the
71: spectrometer central ray), and $y^\prime_{tar}$ and $x^\prime_{tar}$ are the
72: tangents of the in-plane and out-of-plane scattering angles, with $\hat{x}$
73: pointing downwards, $\hat{y}$ pointing left, and $\hat{z}$ pointing towards
74: the spectrometer. Note that while $x^\prime_{tar}$ and $y^\prime_{tar}$ are
75: the slopes of the tracks ($x^\prime_{tar} = \frac{dx_{tar}}{dz_{tar}}$), they
76: are often referred to as the out-of-plane and in-plane scattering angles, and
77: given the units of radians (or milliradians).
78:
79: Cuts are applied to the reconstructed target quantities in order to eliminate
80: events that are outside of the spectrometer acceptance but which end up in
81: the detectors after multiple scattering in the magnets or shielding.
82: The cuts are kept loose enough to avoid losing any real events due to
83: the finite tracking resolution caused by the drift chamber position resolution
84: and by multiple scattering in the target and the entrance and exit windows in
85: the spectrometer. In addition, we apply a cut on the reconstructed momentum.
86: This cut is applied so that we analyze data in the momentum region where
87: we have good matrix elements for reconstructing the track to the target.
88: The tracking cuts applied are listed in table \ref{trackcuts}.
89:
90: In the HMS, the $x^\prime_{tar}$,$y^\prime_{tar}$, and $y_{tar}$ cuts
91: typically rejected $\sim$1.0\% of the total tracked events, and never more
92: than 2\%. Of these events, $80-90\%$ come from events that are outside of
93: the acceptance, but scatter back into the detectors at the dipole exit or in
94: the vacuum pipe afterwards. Therefore, the cuts are $>99.5\%$
95: efficient for good events. Of the events that scatter inside of the
96: spectrometer and end up in the detector stack, $\gtorder$ 90\% are rejected in
97: the tracking cuts or with the background cuts (described later). More than
98: half are rejected by the tracking cuts, and therefore the worst case loss to
99: tracking cuts of 2\% indicates a worst case of scraping events of 4\%. With
100: $\gtorder$ 90\% rejection, this leaves a possible contamination of 0.4\%. No
101: correction is made to the cross section, but a $\pm$0.5\% uncertainty is
102: assumed due to possible inefficiency in the cuts or contamination due to
103: scraping events.
104:
105: In the SOS, the tracking cuts typically reject $\sim$0.3\% of the events,
106: and always less than 1\%. Of these, more than half come from scraping at
107: the exit of the dipole vacuum can. Thus, the cuts are $>$99.5\% efficient.
108: More than 70\% of the scraping events are rejected by these cuts, giving
109: a maximum contamination of $<$.4\% for the worst runs (with 1\% of the events
110: rejected by the tracking cuts). No correction is applied to the cross
111: section for the cut efficiency. A 0.5\% systematic uncertainty is applied to
112: the cross section in order to account for possible inefficiency of the tracking
113: cuts, and possible contamination due to scraping events.
114:
115: \begin{table}
116: \begin{center}
117: \begin{tabular}{||c|c||} \hline
118: HMS & SOS \\ \hline
119: $| x^\prime_{tar} | < 90 mr$ & $| x^\prime_{tar} | < 40 mr$ \\
120: $| y^\prime_{tar} | < 55 mr$ & $| y^\prime_{tar} | < 80 mr$ \\
121: $| y_{tar}| < 7cm+(\mbox{target length})/2$ &
122: $| y_{tar}| < 2cm+(\mbox{target length})/2$ \\
123: $| \delta | < 14 \%$ & $-16\% < \delta < 12 \%$ \\
124: \hline
125: \end{tabular}
126: \caption[Cuts on Reconstructed Tracks]
127: {Cuts on reconstructed tracks.}
128: \label{trackcuts}
129: \end{center}
130: \end{table}
131:
132: \subsection{Particle Identification Cuts}\label{subsec_pidcuts}
133:
134: In addition to electrons, the spectrometer detects negative hadrons (mostly
135: pions). The gas \v{C}erenkov detector and lead-glass shower counter can
136: separate the electrons from the hadrons. The trigger electronics require a
137: signal from either one of these detectors before the event is accepted. Over
138: the full range of the data, the ratio of pions to electrons varies between
139: $10^{-3}$ and $10^3$. In order to have a clean sample of electrons, a cut is
140: applied requiring a good signal from both the \v{C}erenkov and the shower
141: counter.
142:
143: Figure \ref{hcer} shows the HMS \v{C}erenkov spectrum for runs with high and
144: low pion to electron ratios, taken without the particle identification in the
145: trigger. The threshold on the \v{C}erenkov signal in the trigger electronics
146: corresponds to a cut at $\sim$1.5 photoelectrons, while the average signal was
147: 10 photoelectrons. In order to improve pion rejection in software, the event
148: was required to have more than 2 photoelectrons for the HMS. On average, this
149: cut is 99.8\% efficient, but at the edges of the mirrors in the HMS, the
150: signal drops as low as $\sim$8-9 photoelectrons, which causes the inefficiency
151: to increase by up to 0.8\%. Figure \ref{hcer_vs_x} shows the measured number
152: of photoelectrons as a function of the vertical position of the track at the
153: HMS \v{C}erenkov mirrors. The data is corrected for the average efficiency
154: (99.8\%), and a systematic uncertainty of 0.5\% is assigned to the
155: \v{C}erenkov cut. The pion rejection for this cut is $\sim$550:1, with the
156: main source of pion contamination coming from pions which produce knock-on
157: electrons in the material immediately in front of the \v{C}erenkov tank. If
158: the knock-on electron is above the \v{C}erenkov threshold ($\sim$15 MeV/c), it
159: can emit \v{C}erenkov light and cause the pion to be misidentified as an
160: electron.
161:
162: \begin{figure}[htb]
163: \begin{center}
164: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
165: \epsfig{file=hcer_vs_x.eps,width=6.0in}
166: \end{center}
167: \caption[HMS \v{C}erenkov Signal versus Position at Mirrors]
168: {HMS \v{C}erenkov signal versus horizontal position at the mirrors. On the
169: right is a blowup of the overlap region. Note that even at the lowest point
170: in the dip, the mean signal is still 8-9 photoelectrons.}
171: \label{hcer_vs_x}
172: \end{figure}
173:
174: In the SOS, the mean signal is $\sim$12 photoelectrons, and the hardware
175: threshold in the trigger corresponds to 1.7 photoelectrons. In the final
176: analysis, a signal of 3.3 photoelectrons is required, giving an efficiency of
177: 99.8\%. There is less material in front of the SOS \v{C}erenkov tank, and
178: therefore the pion rejection limit caused by knock-on electrons is
179: $\sim$900:1. However, in the SOS, the ADC signal had significant noise, and
180: the \v{C}erenkov signal would occasionally exceed the initial 2 photoelectron
181: cut. Because of this, the cut was raised to 3.3 photoelectrons, reducing the
182: probability that the noise will cause a pion to exceed the cut to $\leq
183: 0.5$\%. This means that the online cut rejects pions at $\sim$160:1, after
184: taking into account the pions which produce knock-on electrons and the pions
185: which have significant noise in the ADC. However, the cut could not be
186: increased above 3.3 photoelectrons without causing a significant inefficiency
187: for electrons, due to the variation of the signal near the edges of the
188: mirrors.
189:
190: While the average signal is $\sim$12 photoelectrons, it is reduced in the
191: regions where the mirrors overlap due to imperfections in the mirrors and
192: possible misalignment. Therefore, the 3.3 photoelectron cut had a significant
193: inefficiency in some regions. Figure \ref{scer_vs_x} shows the SOS
194: \v{C}erenkov signal as a function of vertical position at the mirrors. There
195: is a clear reduction in the signal in the region of overlap of the mirrors
196: (shown in greater detail in the figure on the right). In this overlap region,
197: the \v{C}erenkov has a significant inefficiency for a 3.3 p.e. cut, but
198: lowering the cut would reduce the pion rejection to unacceptable levels.
199: However, in the final analysis the data is binned in the Nachtmann variable
200: $\xi = 2x/(1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4M^2x^2}{Q^2}})$ (see section \ref{sec_bincorr}),
201: and while the inefficiency for a 3.3 photoelectron cut is large ($\sim
202: 5$\%) where the signal is the lowest, the inefficiency in any $\xi$ bin is
203: much smaller ($\leq 2\%$). Figure \ref{scer_vs_xi} shows the same data
204: as figure \ref{scer_vs_x}, but now as a function of $\xi$. The gap that is
205: well localized in $x_{cer}$ is now almost evenly spread out over the lower
206: half of the $\xi$ acceptance. Because the data is binned in $\xi$ for the
207: extraction of the cross section (see section \ref{sec_bincorr}), the
208: worst-case inefficiency for a 3.3 photoelectron cut is only 1-2\%. We
209: normalize the data for the average inefficiency (1\%), and assign an
210: uncertainty of 1\% to cover the variation of the efficiency over the $\xi$
211: bins.
212:
213: \begin{figure}[htb]
214: \begin{center}
215: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
216: \epsfig{file=scer_vs_x.eps,width=6.0in}
217: \end{center}
218: \caption[SOS \v{C}erenkov Signal versus Position at Mirrors]
219: {SOS \v{C}erenkov signal versus horizontal position at the mirrors. On the
220: right is a blowup of the overlap region. Note that even at the lowest point
221: in the dip, the mean signal is still 8-9 photoelectrons.}
222: \label{scer_vs_x}
223: \end{figure}
224:
225: \begin{figure}[htb]
226: \begin{center}
227: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
228: \epsfig{file=scer_vs_xi.eps,width=6.0in}
229: \end{center}
230: \caption[SOS \v{C}erenkov Signal versus $\xi$]
231: {SOS \v{C}erenkov signal versus $\xi$. While there is a significant localized
232: reduction of the signal at the overlap of the mirrors, the loss of signal is
233: spread out nearly uniformly over the lower half of the $\xi$ acceptance of the
234: spectrometer. The figure on the right shows the signal versus $\xi$ for data
235: near the overlap regions (same cut as in figure \ref{scer_vs_x}.}
236: \label{scer_vs_xi}
237: \end{figure}
238:
239: The lead-glass shower counter was also used to reduce the pion contamination.
240: Because the calorimeter does not cover the complete acceptance of the
241: spectrometer (some tracks miss the calorimeter for extreme values of
242: $\delta$), the reconstructed focal plane track was projected to the
243: calorimeter and a fiducial cut was applied requiring that the track was at
244: least 3 cm inside of the edge of the calorimeter.
245:
246: In the HMS, the intrinsic calorimeter energy resolution is $\sim$6\%$/
247: \sqrt{E}$, but during the first half of the running, the ADC pedestals had
248: small fluctuations, and the overall resolution was somewhat worse. Figure
249: \ref{ecal_vs_time} shows the calorimeter energy as a function of time for a
250: run where there pedestal values varied during the run. The ADC offsets make
251: discrete jumps, leading to offsets in the measured energy for pions and
252: electrons. In cases like figure \ref{ecal_vs_time}, the separation between
253: the pions and electrons (pions should appear at $\sim$0.3 GeV) is large enough
254: that the pion rejection is unaffected. In addition, because the calorimeter
255: energy fraction cut was lowered as the momentum increased (see below), the
256: calorimeter cut is efficient enough that there is no significant inefficiency
257: for electron detection for this run. The fluctuations only occured during the
258: first half of the run (after which the bad ADC was replaced), and only
259: affected $\sim$1/3 of the runs during that period. For the majority of the
260: runs, the electron energies were large and the fluctuations were small. For
261: these cases, the pion rejection and electron efficiency were not significantly
262: affected. For runs where the electron energies were smaller or the
263: fluctuations large, the energy cut was lowered if the \v{C}erenkov cut and
264: reduced pion rejection were sufficient to remove the pions. Runs where this
265: was not possible due to the large pion background were removed from the data
266: set. For some of these runs it would have been possible to measure the
267: pedestal shifts using the values from blocks that had no signal from the
268: electron. However, all of the data that was rejected was taken at kinematics
269: where there were other runs which were unaffected by the pedestal jumps.
270: Therefore it was decided to eliminate the bad runs entirely and take the
271: reduced statistics, rather than trying to correct these runs and have larger
272: systematic uncertainties due to reduced electron efficiency or a
273: non-negligible pion background.
274:
275: \begin{figure}[htb]
276: \begin{center}
277: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
278: \epsfig{file=ecal_vs_time.ps,width=5.0in,height=3.0in}
279: \end{center}
280: \caption[Pedestal Fluctuations in the HMS Calorimeter ADC]
281: {HMS calorimeter energy versus time for one of the runs with fluctuating ADC
282: pedestals. The HMS was set at 2.2 GeV/c, so electrons deposit 2.2 GeV and
283: pions deposit $\sim$0.3 GeV in the calorimeter.}
284: \label{ecal_vs_time}
285: \end{figure}
286:
287: \begin{figure}[htb]
288: \begin{center}
289: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
290: \epsfig{file=hpid_test.eps,width=3.8in,height=3.5in}
291: \end{center}
292: \caption[HMS Calorimeter versus \v{C}erenkov]
293: {Calorimeter ($E_{cal}/p$) versus \v{C}erenkov for HMS run with a pion to
294: electron ratio of approximately 70:1. The majority of the pions occur at 0
295: photoelectrons, though approximately 1\% have a single photoelectron signal
296: from noise.}
297: \label{hpid}
298: \end{figure}
299:
300: The HMS detected particles with momenta between 0.995 GeV/c and 4 GeV/c. For
301: the lowest momentum, where the resolution is the worst and the pion-electron
302: separation is the smallest, the electron was required to have an energy
303: fraction, $E_{cal}/p$, greater than 0.7. This cut is always $3 \sigma$ or
304: greater, ($\gtorder 99.9 \%$ efficient) even for runs where the resolution is
305: worse than usual due to pedestal drift. As the momentum increases, the energy
306: fraction measured for electrons is still one, and the pion peak shifts to
307: lower energy fraction ($\sim 0.3$ GeV/$p$). During a portion of the running,
308: all at higher momenta, the calorimeter ADC signals made discrete jumps during
309: the course of a run. Therefore, while the resolution of the electron peak
310: improves as the energy increases, there were some runs where the effective
311: width was significantly larger then the normal $6\% / \sqrt{E}$. Therefore,
312: the energy fraction cut was varied with energy, so that it was always highly
313: efficient ($> 99.8 \%$) for all energies, including runs where the pedestals
314: varied during the run. The final cut used was:
315:
316: \begin{equation}
317: E_{cal}/p > 0.7 - 0.07*(p-0.995)
318: \end{equation}
319: which corresponds to an energy cut of $0.7315 p - 0.07 p^2$. As the momentum
320: increases, the energy resolution improves and the energy fraction cut
321: decreases, increasing the electron efficiency of the cut. In addition, the
322: absolute energy cut increases with momentum (for momentum values below 5
323: GeV/c), while the energy of the main pion signal remains constant. Therefore,
324: the pion rejection is also improved as the momentum increases. However, even
325: at very high energies there is still a small probability that a pion will
326: deposit enough energy and be misidentified as an electron. While the majority
327: of pions deposit roughly 0.3 GeV in the calorimeter, there is a small tail in
328: the calorimeter energy distribution for pions that extends out to the full
329: pion energy. The tail comes from pions which undergo a charge exchange
330: interactions and become neutral pions. The neutral pions can decay into
331: photons in the calorimeter, and their full energy can be deposited in the
332: calorimeter. For the kinematics measured in e89-008, it is the lower momentum
333: values where the pion rejection is most important, and in this region it is
334: the resolution of the pion energy deposition that limits the pion rejection,
335: rather than the tail. The HMS calorimeter pion rejection is $\sim$ 25:1 at 1
336: GeV, 50:1 at 1.3 GeV, and 150:1 at 1.5 GeV. For the HMS, the combination of
337: \v{C}erenkov and Calorimeter cuts reduces the pion contamination in the final
338: data to $< 1.0\%$ for all kinematics. Figure \ref{hpid} shows calorimeter
339: signal ($E_{cal}/p$) versus the \v{Cerenkov} for the HMS at a central momentum
340: of 1.11 GeV/c, with a pion to electron ratio of $\sim$70:1. For some higher
341: momentum runs, the ratio of pions to electrons is much higher, but the
342: calorimeter pion rejection improves as the energy increases, making this one
343: of the worst cases for pion contamination. Figure \ref{hpitoe} shows the pion
344: to electron ratio (as calculated from the hardware scalers) versus the
345: momentum for all of the data runs. The line shows the $\pi$/e ratio at which
346: there is a 1\% contamination after the particle identification cuts. The $\pi
347: /e$ ratio for the run is determined by taking the ratio of the PION and ELLO
348: hardware scalers. At very high $\pi / e$ ratios, the ELLO scaler will have a
349: significant contribution from pions which produce a knock-on electron of
350: sufficient energy to give a signal in the \v{C}erenkov. The ELLO scaler was
351: corrected for the expected pion contamination, based on the pion rejection of
352: the \v{C}erenkov trigger signal. Therefore, the calculated $\pi$/e ratio is
353: accurate for $\pi$/e $\geq$ one. However, for $\pi$/e $\ll 1$, the
354: calculated $\pi$/e is too high, due to electrons which do not fire the
355: \v{C}erenkov discriminator and are identified as pions.
356:
357: \begin{figure}[htb]
358: \begin{center}
359: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
360: \epsfig{file=hbigpitoe.ps,width=5.5in}
361: \end{center}
362: \caption[Ratio of Pions to Electrons in the HMS versus Momentum]
363: {Ratio of pions to electrons in the HMS as a function of momentum. The
364: $\pi$/e ratio is calculated from the hardware scalers, and corrects for
365: pion misidentification in the scaler signals. The line shows the $\pi$/e
366: ratio where there is a 1\% pion contamination after the particle identification
367: cuts.}
368: \label{hpitoe}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: For the SOS, the calorimeter is physically identical to the HMS except
372: for the total size. The performance of the SOS calorimeter was nearly
373: identical to the HMS, except that it did not have problems with drifts in the
374: ADC pedestals. The resolution for the SOS calorimeter was $\ltorder 6\% /
375: \sqrt{E}$. However, because the SOS was operated at lower momenta than the
376: HMS, the cut had to be tighter than in the HMS. For the SOS, the energy
377: fraction had to be greater then 0.75. For the lowest SOS momentum, p=0.74 GeV,
378: the energy resolution is $\sim$7\%, and the cut is $\gtorder$99.8\% efficient.
379: The pion rejection factor is given as a function of momentum in table
380: \ref{scalrej}. Figure \ref{spitoe} shows the pion to electron ratio (as
381: calculated from the hardware scalers) versus the momentum for all of the data
382: runs. The lines show the $\pi$/e ratio at which there is a 1\% (5\%)
383: contamination after the particle identification cuts. The hardware scalers
384: are corrected in the same way as in figure \ref{hpitoe}, so the $\pi$/e ratio
385: shown is accurate for $\pi$/e$>1$, but not for small values. The pion
386: rejection of the cut is measured very accurately at 1.11 GeV/c, where there
387: were high statistics runs taken without the particle identification trigger.
388: For the lower momentum runs, the pion rejection shown is determined by
389: assuming that the pions have the same energy distribution at the lower momenta,
390: and reducing the energy cut to 0.75 times the central momentum, which is the
391: cut used in the data analysis (E/p=0.75). However, this underestimates the
392: pion rejection because it assumes that the tail of the pion distribution goes
393: up to 1.11 GeV, when in fact it must fall to zero above the actual pion
394: momentum. A small correction was applied to remove the part of the energy
395: distribution above the pion momentum, but this only removes the end of the
396: pion energy tail, it does not reduce it at intermediate energies. Thus, the
397: pion rejection assumed in figure \ref{spitoe} is a lower limit.
398:
399: \begin{table}
400: \begin{center}
401: \begin{tabular}{||c|c||} \hline
402: E$_\pi$ & Pion Rejection \\ \hline
403: 0.75 GeV & 10:1 \\
404: 0.90 GeV & 20:1 \\
405: 1.11 GeV & 50:1 \\
406: 1.30 GeV & 150:1 \\ \hline
407: \end{tabular}
408: \caption[SOS Calorimeter Pion Rejection]
409: {SOS calorimeter pion rejection as a function of pion energy.}
410: \label{scalrej}
411: \end{center}
412: \end{table}
413:
414: %(SHOW PICTURE OF SHTRK SPECTRUM FOR RUN 9132. USING ONLINE
415: %REJECTION=250:1, OFFLINE=170:1, COMBINED=300:1. THE 300 IS A GUESS, AND
416: %PROBABLY (HOPEFULLY) AN UNDERESTIMATE. GET A BETTER NUMBER!!!)
417:
418: \begin{figure}[htb]
419: \begin{center}
420: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
421: \epsfig{file=sbigpitoe.ps,width=5.5in}
422: \end{center}
423: \caption[Ratio of Pions to Electrons in the SOS versus Momentum]
424: {Ratio of pions to electrons in the SOS as a function of momentum. The
425: $\pi$/e ratio is calculated from the hardware scalers, and corrects for
426: pion misidentification in the scaler signals. The solid line shows the
427: $\pi$/e ratio where there is a 1\% pion contamination after the particle
428: identification cuts, and the dashed line shows the 5\% contamination level.
429: The pion rejection is measured very accurately at 1.11 GeV/c, but the pion
430: rejection at lower momentum values is a lower limit of the pion rejection
431: achieved. Therefore, the final pion contamination is always below the 3\%
432: worst-case shown here.}
433: \label{spitoe}
434: \end{figure}
435:
436: For some runs at 74$\deg$ (and momentum below 1 GeV/c), there is a
437: non-negligible pion contamination after the shower counter and \v{C}erenkov
438: cuts are applied. The worst case pion contamination is below 3\%.
439: However, for the large angle data we subtract the charge-symmetric electron
440: background (see section \ref{subsection_background}) by subtracting
441: positive polarity data taken at identical kinematics. If the production cross
442: sections for $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ are identical, then the pions remaining after
443: cuts in the electron running will be subtracted out by pions in the positive
444: polarity running. However, there are two errors associated with this
445: subtraction. As discussed in section \ref{subsection_background}, the positive
446: polarity runs are only taken for some of the targets. The background for the
447: other targets is scaled according to the effective thickness of the target.
448: Because the pion and positron production rates may have a different dependence
449: on target thickness, the normalization used in subtracting out the positrons
450: is not exactly correct for the pions. In addition, if the production rates
451: for positive and negative pions differ, then the subtraction will be
452: incorrect. The positive polarity measurements are taken with the thick
453: targets, and so the only uncertainty in the subtraction of the pions
454: is the ratio of $\pi^+$ to $\pi^-$. As long as the $\pi^+$ cross section
455: is not more than twice the $\pi^-$ cross section, the worst case error in
456: the cross section will still be 3\% (a 3\% $\pi^-$ contamination if the
457: $\pi^+$ cross section is zero, or a 3\% over-subtraction of the pions if
458: the $\pi^+$ cross section is twice the $\pi^-$. For the thin targets, there
459: is an additional uncertainty due to the extrapolation from the measured thick
460: target backgrounds to the thin targets. However, for the thin target data,
461: the pion contamination is lower than for the thick target data. Therefore,
462: the worst case pion contamination before subtraction is $<$1.5\% for the
463: thin target data, and the maximum final error is still 3\%, even if the
464: the number of $\pi^+$ subtracted is three times the number of $\pi^-$
465: present, due to the difference in $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ cross section, and the
466: error made in the extrapolation to thin targets. We assume a full pion
467: subtraction for the cross section, and apply no normalization, and assume an
468: uncertainty of 100\% in the subtraction of $\pm$70\% of the expected pion
469: contamination, leading to a maximum uncertainty of $\pm$3\%. Because of the
470: uncertainties caused by the large charge-symmetric background subtraction, and
471: the low statistics for the 74$^\circ$ running, the uncertainty from the
472: possible pion contamination is not a large contribution to the final
473: uncertainty. We assign a 3\% uncertainty to the low momentum SOS data due to
474: uncertainty in the pion rejection/subtraction.
475:
476: \subsection{Background Rejection}\label{subsection_background}
477:
478: In addition to rejecting pions, it is also necessary to reject background
479: electrons. These are electrons that are not coming from the scattering
480: of beam electrons in the target. There are two main sources of background
481: electrons. First, there are events where particles coming from upstream
482: or downstream of the target (beam halo scattering off of the beam pipe or
483: background from the beam dump) enter the spectrometer after the magnets
484: and create low energy electrons that reach the detectors. There are
485: also `secondary' high energy electrons that are produced in the target rather
486: than being scattered from the beam.
487:
488: In the HMS, background events come from low energy electrons from the beam
489: dump scattering into the detector hut near the exit of the dipole. There
490: is a vacuum pipe that runs through the magnets and into the detector hut.
491: Particles in the hall that pass through the vacuum pipe after the magnets
492: can be scattered into the detector hut (or produce knock-on electrons that
493: make it into the hut). When the focal plane tracks are projected backwards to
494: a point just before the entrance to the shielding hut, the events that come
495: from scattering in the vacuum pipe can be seen as a 'ring' in the $x$-$y$
496: plane, while real events are seen in the center. Prior to the experiment,
497: shielding was added to decrease the background from particles entering
498: the spectrometer after the magnets. In the analysis, a cut is applied to
499: remove events that come from outside of the vacuum pipe. In addition, because
500: these are low energy electrons, most are rejected in the calorimeter cut.
501: The combination of the cut at the entrance to the hut and the calorimeter is
502: sufficient to eliminate this source of background. Figure \ref{dipole_cut}
503: shows a run with a very low rate of real events as well as a high rate run.
504: In the low rate run, the events coming from the vacuum pipe are clearly
505: visible. Because most of the background particles in the hall come from
506: the beamline or the beam dump, they are traveling nearly horizontally when
507: they pass through the vacuum pipe. This means that they pass through
508: significantly more material if they strike the top or bottom of the pipe,
509: and so have a greater chance of being scattered into the hut than particles
510: which pass through the sides of the pipe.
511:
512: There were also a significant number of events in which particles above the
513: spectrometer momentum would hit the bottom of the dipole and be scattered into
514: the spectrometer, or produce lower energy electrons which made it through the
515: last part of the dipole and into the hut. Before e89-008, shielding was added
516: at the back of the dipole, in between the vacuum pipe and the magnet in order
517: to reduce the background. In the analysis, the combination of the calorimeter
518: cut, the cut at the hut entrance, and the cuts on reconstructed target
519: quantities eliminated these events.
520:
521: \begin{figure}[htb]
522: \begin{center}
523: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
524: \epsfig{file=dipole.eps,width=6.0in}
525: \end{center}
526: \caption[Background From the Dipole Exit and Vacuum Pipe]
527: {Background events coming from the dipole exit can and vacuum pipe. The
528: data on the left come from a run with a very low rate of real events. The run
529: on the right is a run with a high rate of real events. The figures show
530: $x$ versus $y$ 750 cm in front of the focal plane (near the exit of the
531: dipole) before tracking or calorimeter cuts have been applied. Note that $-x$
532: corresponds to the top of the dipole can.}
533: \label{dipole_cut}
534: \end{figure}
535:
536: In the SOS, the back portion of the second dipole is inside of the shielding
537: hut. Therefore, low energy electrons entering the vacuum line outside of
538: the hut would be swept away by the dipole and not reach the detectors.
539: In the SOS, there is no way for a particle to reach the vacuum pipe without
540: passing through the magnets or penetrating the shielding hut. There are two
541: small gaps in the shielding where the SOS dipole enters the hut. This allows
542: events to enter the hut without passing through the magnets, but these events
543: are easy to reconstruct back to the hole. Figure \ref{sosdipole} shows $x$
544: versus $y$ at the entrance to the shielding hut. At $x \sim -29$ cm, there
545: are events that come through gaps in the shielding where the dipole enters
546: the hut. While the majority of events coming through the gaps are rejected
547: in the tracking cuts, the events shown have passed the $\delta$, $\theta$, and
548: particle identification cuts. In order to remove these events, we project the
549: track to the wall of the shielding hut, and require $(x_{fp} - 100
550: x^\prime_{fp}) > -24$ cm.
551:
552: \begin{figure}[htb]
553: \begin{center}
554: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
555: \epsfig{file=sosdipole.eps,width=3.2in,height=3.0in}
556: \end{center}
557: \caption[Events Entering the SOS Hut Through Gaps in the Shielding Hut]
558: {$y_{fp}$ versus $x_{fp}$ projected back to the front of the SOS shielding
559: hut, after tracking and particle identification cuts have been applied. At $x
560: \sim -28 cm$, there are events coming through gaps in the shielding where the
561: dipole enters the detector hut. Many of the events have been rejected by
562: the $\delta$ and $\theta$ cuts, but some still pass those cuts. A cut
563: has been applied at $x_{dipole}$ = -24 cm.}
564: \label{sosdipole}
565: \end{figure}
566:
567:
568: In addition to background coming from the low energy electrons, there are
569: secondary electrons produced in the target. Since they are secondary
570: electrons, rather than scattered electrons, they are a background for the
571: measurement. The main background of secondary electrons most likely comes from
572: electro-production and photo-production of neutral pions. These pions then
573: decay into photons which can produce positron-electron pairs. This background
574: is charge-symmetric, and can be measured by running with the spectrometers in
575: positive polarity, and detecting the produced positrons. For the largest
576: angles (55$^\circ$ and 74$^\circ$), this background was significant. In this
577: case, the positron production cross section was fit from our measurements and
578: subtracted from the electron data. For the smaller angles, this background was
579: negligible ($<$1\%).
580:
581: Positive polarity data was typically only taken for one or two targets for
582: each kinematics. We parameterize the ratio of positron to electron production
583: in terms of the target thickness (in radiation lengths), and extrapolate the
584: measured positron cross sections to the thickness of the other targets. The
585: $e^+/e^-$ ratio can vary by up to a factor of four between the different
586: targets, but the positron rate differs from the parameterization by only
587: $\sim$10\% over this range. Most of the positive polarity data were taken with
588: the thick targets in order to maximize the positron statistics. Therefore,
589: the extrapolation of the measured $e^+/e^-$ ratio between the different thick
590: target had only a small uncertainty $\approx$1-2\%, while the extrapolation to
591: thin targets was uncertain at the $\sim$10\% level. However, the ratio of
592: positrons to electrons was near unity for the thick targets, but only
593: $\sim$30\% for the thin targets. Therefore, the uncertainty due to the target
594: thickness extrapolation is $\ltorder$3\% of the total electron cross
595: section. Rather than making a point by point subtraction of the measured
596: positron cross section, all positron data at 55$\deg$ and 74$\deg$ was fit in
597: order to obtain the cross section to be subtracted due to the charge-symmetric
598: background. The uncertainty in the positron fit was a combination of the
599: uncertainty due to target thickness differences, and due to the statistics of
600: the measurements.
601:
602: Figure \ref{positron} shows the background subtracted electron and raw
603: positron cross sections for scattering from the thick Gold at $55^\circ$, and
604: from the thick Iron and thin Carbon targets at $74^\circ$. At $55^\circ$, the
605: charge symmetric background is $\sim$10\% of the electron cross section for
606: the thick targets, and $\sim$3-4\% for the thin targets. At $74^\circ$, the
607: background can be equal to or larger the electron cross section for the thick
608: targets, and $\sim$20\% for the thin targets.
609:
610: \begin{figure}[htb]
611: \begin{center}
612: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
613: \epsfig{file=positron_thesis.ps,width=4.5in,height=5.0in}
614: \end{center}
615: \caption[Electron and Positron Cross Sections]
616: {Electron and positron cross sections. The filled diamonds are the measured
617: electron cross section after subtraction of the charge symmetric background.
618: The hollow diamonds are the measured positron production cross section. The
619: top plot is 55$\deg$ data measured with the thick Gold target (5.8\% of a
620: radiation length), the middle is 74$\deg$ with the thick Iron target (5.8\%
621: r.l.), and the bottom is 74$\deg$ data with the thin Carbon target (2.1\%
622: r.l.). The solid line is the fit to all positron data that is subtracted from
623: the electron cross section.}
624: \label{positron}
625: \end{figure}
626:
627: \clearpage
628:
629: \subsection{Electronic and Computer Deadtime.}\label{sec_deadtime}
630:
631: The main corrections to the measured number of counts come from data
632: acquisition dead times and inefficiencies in the trigger hardware and the
633: drift chambers. Electronic deadtime is caused when triggers are missed because
634: the hardware is busy when an event that should generate a trigger
635: comes in. When a logic gate in the trigger is activated, the output signal
636: stays high for a fixed time. If another event tries to activate the gate in
637: that time, it is ignored. If the mean event rate is $R$, then the probability
638: of finding $n$ counts in a time $t$ is given by the Poisson distribution:
639:
640: \begin{equation}
641: P(n)=\frac{(Rt)^ne^{-Rt}}{n!},
642: \end{equation}
643: and the probability distribution for the time between events is
644:
645: \begin{equation}
646: P(t)=Re^{-Rt}.
647: \end{equation}
648:
649: An event will be missed if it comes within a time $\tau$ of an event
650: accepted by the gate, where $\tau$ is the gate width of the logic signal.
651: If the probability for this to occur is small enough, then this is nearly
652: identical to the probability of an event coming within time $\tau$ of the
653: previous event (whether or not the previous event triggered the logic gate).
654: Therefore, for small dead times the fraction of measured events is equal to
655: the probability that the time between events will be greater than $\tau$:
656:
657: \begin{equation}
658: \frac{N_{measured}}{N_{total}} = \int_\tau^\infty Re^{-Rt}dt = e^{-R\tau}.
659: \end{equation}
660:
661: In the trigger, all of the logic gates have a width of 30 ns, except for
662: the hodoscope discriminators. The hodoscope discriminators have a very
663: low threshold, and so their gate width was set to 50 ns in order to
664: eliminate double pulsing of the discriminators caused by ringing of the
665: signal. However, the hodoscope discriminators are not dead when their outputs are
666: active. If a new signal comes in while the discriminator output is high, the
667: output signal is extended to 60ns after the latest hit. Therefore,
668: $\tau =30$ns for the electronic dead time. For the trigger rates measured in
669: this experiment, the live time was very close to 100\%, and could be
670: approximated by $e^{-R\tau} \approx 1 - R\tau$. To correct for the dead time,
671: we generated four versions of the final electron trigger, each with a
672: different gate width ($\tau$ = 30,60,90, and 120 ns). We then made a linear
673: extrapolation to zero dead time in order to determine how many events were
674: lost in the real electron trigger ($\tau$ = 30 ns). For each run we measured
675: the electronic dead time and corrected the final cross section for the number
676: of triggers lost. For the HMS, the maximum correction was $\approx$ 0.1\%, and
677: for the SOS it was $\ltorder$ 0.02\%.
678:
679: There is another source of electronic deadtime, coming from singles
680: triggers which were generated properly, but which were interpreted as
681: coincidence triggers due to a random coincidence with an SOS trigger.
682: As described in section \ref{sec_trigger}, the trigger included HMS and SOS
683: singles triggers, as well as coincidence triggers. Coincidence triggers only
684: came as the result of random electron coincidences in the spectrometers.
685: While the COIN triggers formed in the 8LM (see figure \ref{ts_thesis}) were
686: prescaled away at the trigger supervisor (TS), if the HMS and SOS singles
687: triggers come within the latching time of the TS ($\sim$7 ns), then the event
688: will be treated as a coincidence. While each coincidence trigger indicates a
689: trigger for both the HMS and SOS, they are not analyzed because the timing was
690: not set up properly for coincidences, and there could be mistiming in the ADC
691: gates and TDC stops. Because an event with HMS and SOS events coming within
692: the TS latching time will be treated as a coincidence event, an SOS trigger
693: coming between 7 ns before and 7 ns after an HMS trigger will cause the event
694: to be tagged as a coincidence. If the rate of triggers in the SOS is $R$, and
695: the time window for a coincidence trigger is $\tau$ (15 ns in this case), then
696: the probability of an SOS trigger causing a random coincidence with an HMS
697: trigger is:
698:
699: \begin{equation}
700: \int_0^\tau Re^{-Rt}dt = 1 - e^{-R\tau}.
701: \end{equation}
702:
703: For $R\tau \ll 1$, the coincidence blocking deadtime can be approximated
704: as $1-e^{-R\tau} \approx 1-(1-R\tau) = R\tau$. For the most part, the
705: coincidence blocking caused an inefficiency between $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-4}$
706: of the events. However, there were a few runs where the SOS singles
707: rate was high enough to cause $\gtorder$0.2\% of the HMS events to be taken
708: as coincidence triggers. However, for all of the runs where the SOS rate was
709: high enough to cause a noticeable dead time, the SOS triggers were prescaled
710: by a factor of 100 or more. This reduced the number of SOS triggers available
711: to make a false coincidence with the HMS in the TS, and made the dead time
712: negligible for these runs as well.
713:
714: A more significant source of dead time for this experiment was
715: the computer dead time. In this case, events are lost because a hardware
716: trigger is formed when the data acquisition system is busy processing the
717: previous event. The total processing time for an event is
718: $\sim$300-400$\micro$s. However, when running in buffered mode the data acquisition can
719: accept a new trigger before the old trigger is fully processed. It is
720: only dead for $\sim$100$\micro$s, while the fastbus conversion of the data
721: is in progress (see section \ref{subsection_datarates} for more details).
722: The computer dead time is measured by counting the number of triggers
723: that were formed and the number of triggers that were processed by the Trigger
724: Supervisor. The number processed over the number generated is the live time
725: of the data acquisition system. The dead time is calculated for each run,
726: and the cross section is corrected for the lost triggers. Figure \ref{compdt}
727: shows the computer deadtime for all runs. A few runs were taken in
728: non-buffered mode, and have a processing time of 300-400$\micro$s, depending
729: on the average size of the event. The average event size is dependent on the
730: ratio of HMS to SOS events and the pion to electron ratio, since electrons
731: will usually have extra ADC and TDC values for the calorimeter and
732: \v{C}erenkov signals. For some early runs, the parallel readout of multiple
733: crates was not enabled and the event processing time was roughly 800$\micro$s.
734: Note that at very high rates ($\gtorder$2kHz) the deadtime is larger than
735: expected for a 100$\micro$s processing time. This is because the minimum time
736: between events is 100$\micro$s in buffered mode, but each event still requires
737: $\sim$400 $\micro$s to process fully. Therefore, the maximum rate is
738: $\sim$2500 Hz, and the effective processing time increases from 100 to
739: 400$\micro$s as the incoming event rate goes beyond 2500Hz.
740:
741: \begin{figure}[htb]
742: \begin{center}
743: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
744: \epsfig{file=compdt.ps,width=5.5in,height=3.2in}
745: \end{center}
746: \caption[Measured Computer Dead Time]
747: {Measured computer dead time vs. pretrigger rate. The solid line is the
748: expected value for a processing time, $\tau$, of 100$\micro$s, the dashed line
749: is for $\tau$=350$\micro$s and the dotted line is $\tau$=800$\micro$s. Note
750: that there is some uncertainty in the calculated pretrigger rate. The value
751: plotted is the average rate over the entire run. Therefore, if the beam is
752: off for part of the run, or if the current changes as a function of time, the
753: pretrigger rate shown will not exactly represent the instantaneous rate that
754: determines the deadtime.}
755: \label{compdt}
756: \end{figure}
757:
758: \subsection{Trigger Efficiency.}\label{sec_trigeff}
759:
760: Events are also lost due to detector inefficiencies that cause triggers
761: to be missed, or inefficiency in the drift chambers or tracking algorithm that
762: cause real events to be lost in the event reconstruction. Inefficiencies
763: in the hodoscopes can cause a plane not to fire. The efficiency of each
764: scintillator is determined by taking tracks that point to the center of the
765: paddle (excluding the outer 2 cm of each paddle in the HMS, 1.25 cm in the
766: SOS) and determining how often each paddle fires. Using the measured
767: efficiency of the scintillators, we calculate the probability of missing a
768: trigger due to hodoscope inefficiency and correct the counts for this
769: loss. Because the trigger requires only three of the four planes, the
770: scintillator trigger efficiency is always high, $>$99.4\% for all HMS runs
771: and $\gtorder$99.8\% for the SOS. In the HMS, the data is corrected run by run
772: for the scintillator inefficiency, as determined by the measured hodoscope
773: efficiencies for the run, and a 0.05\% systematic uncertainty is assumed
774: in the correction.
775:
776: In the SOS, the calculated hodoscope efficiency is too low, because multiple
777: scattering in the detector makes it hard to determine the efficiency for the
778: rear hodoscopes using tracking information (see appendix \ref{app_engine} for
779: details on the efficiency calculations). The calculated efficiency for S1X is
780: always better than 99.90\%, and for S1Y, it it always better than 99.93\%.
781: The calculated efficiency for the rear planes is only about 90\%, and shows a
782: small momentum dependence. This is because the efficiency is calculated by
783: taking events where the track points within 1 cm of the center of a hodoscope
784: element, and looking to see if that hodoscope had a signal. In the SOS, the
785: multiple scattering causes some of these events to miss the identified
786: hodoscope element (In the HMS, the hodoscope paddles are wider, and the the
787: multiple scattering is smaller because of the higher momentum). This means
788: that the tracking based efficiency measurements cannot be used to determine
789: the overall hodoscope efficiency. However, for running at a fixed momentum,
790: the measured tracking efficiencies were extremely stable ($\ltorder$0.2\%)
791: over time, indicating that there was never any significant loss of efficiency
792: during the run. The hodoscope efficiency is also measured by looking at the
793: fraction of triggers for which the plane had a hit. While this does not
794: measure the efficiency, it is a fairly good measure of the overall efficiency
795: of the plane. From this efficiency, the front and rear $y$ planes have nearly
796: identical efficiencies, and the front $x$ plane has a slightly smaller
797: efficiency than the rear $x$ plane (due to events which enter at the bottom of
798: the detector stack and pass below the front drift chamber and S1X hodoscope
799: plane. This indicates that the true hodoscope efficiency for the rear planes
800: is comparable to the front planes. Based on the track-independent measurement
801: of the efficiency, and the stability of the track-dependent efficiency, we
802: assume that the rear hodoscopes were at least 98\% efficient, giving a 3/4
803: trigger efficiency of $>$99.95\%. Therefore, for the SOS we do not apply a
804: correction for the hodoscope trigger efficiency, and apply a 0.01\%
805: systematic uncertainty.
806:
807: Additional trigger inefficiency can come if the particle
808: identification signals in the trigger do not fire. The thresholds in the
809: trigger are $\gtorder$99.5\% efficient for the \v{C}erenkov, and $>$90\%
810: efficient for the Calorimeter (better than $99\%$ efficient for higher
811: energies). Since the trigger requires only one of the calorimeter signal or
812: the \v{C}erenkov signal, the PID is greater than 99.95\% efficient in the trigger.
813: Because the PID cuts in the analysis are tighter than the cuts in the trigger,
814: we do not apply a correction for inefficiency in the trigger PID, we apply a
815: single correction to take into account the total inefficiency of all PID cuts.
816: The electron efficiency and pion rejection of the cuts was determined by
817: taking runs with the particle identification signals removed from the trigger.
818: In addition, the pion rejection is checked for each run by examining the
819: calorimeter energy distribution after the final \v{C}erenkov cut has been
820: applied to insure that there is a clean separation of the pion and electron
821: peaks, and that the pion contamination is at or below the level expected from
822: the \v{C}erenkov and calorimeter pion rejection.
823:
824: \subsection{Tracking Efficiency.}\label{sec_trackeff}
825:
826: Even if a trigger is formed, there will be some events where there
827: is not enough information to reconstruct a track. The main sources of
828: inefficiency of this kind are events where too many or too few wires fire
829: in the drift chambers. If too few wires fire, the left-right ambiguity
830: cannot be well determined, and a track is not fit. If too many wires
831: fire, then the tracking takes a large amount of CPU time (finding all
832: pairs and combinations of pairs of hits), and the chance of having a `noise'
833: hit included in the track increases.
834:
835: The tracking efficiency is defined as the number of events for which a track
836: is found, divided by the number of `good' events ({\it i.e.} the number which
837: we expect to have a real track). A trigger is defined as being a `good' event
838: if there was a trigger for the spectrometer, the time of flight determined
839: before tracking determines it was a forward-going particle (rather than a
840: cosmic ray), and one of the two drift chambers had less than 15 hits. We
841: assume that events where both chambers have more than 15 hits are caused by
842: electrons (or pions) which scrape the edge of one of the magnets and cause a
843: shower of particles. Therefore, while there was a real particle, it was not
844: within the acceptance of the spectrometer, and we should not correct for
845: losing it due to tracking inefficiency. An event in which only one drift
846: chamber had 15 hits is assumed to be a good event with additional hits due to
847: noise in the chamber (which sometimes causes all 16 wires on a single
848: discriminator card to fire) or the production of a knock-on electron which
849: produces another short track and therefore another cluster of hits in one of
850: the chambers. Since both of these conditions occur for good events within the
851: acceptance of the spectrometer, we correct for these losses in the tracking
852: efficiency. Once we require that one chamber was clean ($<$15 hits), then
853: the number of tracks is corrected for the fraction lost to a single noisy
854: chamber, a chamber with less than 5 planes hit, or events in which a consistent
855: track cannot be made from the hits in the two chambers (see sections
856: \ref{section_tracking} and \ref{app_recon} for details on the tracking
857: algorithm).
858:
859: The tracking efficiency is calculated for all events, events passing a
860: particle identification cut, events within a fiducial region of the hodoscopes, and
861: events passing both the fiducial and PID cuts. This is because the
862: efficiency calculated for all events includes the tracking efficiency
863: for pions and background events as well as the real electrons. For runs
864: where the electron cross section is low, the majority of events are pions
865: or background electrons. By applying a PID cut, we reject the majority of the
866: pions. By applying the fiducial cut, we look at the central and low momentum
867: region, where the electron cross section is largest, and the signal to
868: background ratio is larger. The data is corrected for the efficiency
869: calculated using events passing the PID and fiducial cuts.
870:
871: \begin{figure}[htb]
872: \begin{center}
873: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
874: \epsfig{file=hfid_thesis.ps,width=5.5in,height=2.8in}
875: \end{center}
876: \caption[HMS Tracking Efficiency versus Time]
877: {HMS Tracking efficiency as a function of time.}
878: \label{hfid_thesis}
879: \end{figure}
880:
881: The HMS tracking efficiency is typically 93-97\%. Roughly 1\% of the loss
882: comes from the drift chamber inefficiency causing too few hits, and the rest
883: comes primarily from noise in a single chamber giving more than 15 hits in a
884: plane. Figure \ref{hfid_thesis} shows the HMS tracking efficiency as a
885: function of time. The tracking efficiency has large variations, but it was
886: checked for several low and high tracking efficiency runs that the majority of
887: event lost came from random noise in the amplifier/discriminator cards or the
888: TDC. For the SOS, the tracking efficiency is typically between 95.5\% and
889: 96.5\%. Roughly 1\% comes from drift chamber inefficiency, and the rest
890: comes from noisy amplifier/discriminator cards. Figure \ref{sfid_thesis}
891: shows the SOS tracking efficiency as a function of time. The chamber noise
892: in the SOS is significantly more stable than in the HMS.
893:
894: \begin{figure}[htb]
895: \begin{center}
896: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
897: \epsfig{file=sfid_thesis.ps,width=5.5in,height=2.8in}
898: \end{center}
899: \caption[SOS Tracking Efficiency versus Time]
900: {SOS Tracking efficiency as a function of time.}
901: \label{sfid_thesis}
902: \end{figure}
903:
904: The main uncertainty in this correction comes from the assumption that all
905: events with one noisy chamber correspond to real events, and events with
906: two noisy chambers correspond to bad (scraping) events. By looking at patterns
907: of drift chamber and hodoscope hits for events where both chambers have $>$15
908: hits, we determined that $\geq$90\% of these events come from showers in
909: the detector. Since the maximum fraction of these events is $<$5\% of
910: the total events (after the PID and fiducial cuts), the maximum loss of good
911: events is $\ltorder$0.5\%. Similarly, $\geq$90\% of the events where one
912: chamber has $>$15 hits correspond to events where there is a single good track
913: in the chambers and hodoscopes, but additional hits in one chamber, usually
914: for a set of wires on a single amplifier/discriminator card. Usually 3-4\%
915: of the events have one noisy chamber, leading to a typical correction for
916: `junk' events of $\leq$0.4\%. For a handful of runs, the number of events
917: lost due to one chamber with $>$15 hits was as high as 8\%, leading to a
918: possible error of $\leq$0.8\%. We correct the data for the measured
919: efficiency (after PID and fiducial cuts) and assign an uncertainty of
920: $\pm$0.5\% to the correction.
921:
922: \subsection{Spectrometer Acceptance}\label{sec_accep}
923:
924: For a fixed angle and momentum setting, the HMS (and SOS) will
925: measure data in a limited range of angles and momenta around the central
926: values. As we move away from the central kinematics, some fraction of the
927: events will be lost if they hit the collimator, scrape the walls of the
928: magnets, or miss detector elements required for the trigger or in the data
929: analysis. For scattering with a cross section $\sigma$, the number of events
930: detected in the spectrometer will be a function of the point where the
931: scattering occurs in the target, and the kinematics of the spectrometer:
932:
933: \begin{equation}
934: N=\int d\delta dx^\prime dy^\prime dx dy dz \cdot \sigma
935: (\delta,x^\prime,y^\prime,x,y,z) \cdot A^6(\delta,x^\prime,y^\prime,x,y,z),
936: \label{accepdef}
937: \end{equation}
938:
939: where $A^6(\delta,x^\prime,y^\prime,x,y,z)$ is the acceptance function of the
940: spectrometer which represents the probability that a scattering event
941: coming from the point $(x,y,z)$, with kinematics defined by $\delta, x^\prime,$
942: and $y^\prime$ will be detected. We can use a model of the spectrometer to
943: perform a Monte Carlo calculation of the acceptance function of the
944: spectrometer. However, it is not feasible to generate enough statistics in
945: the Monte Carlo to have a high precision calculation of acceptance as a
946: function of all 6 variables. Therefore, we would like to define a simplified
947: acceptance function, which averages over the behavior of several of the
948: variables.
949:
950: As long as the target is thin enough that there is no significant loss of
951: beam intensity as a function of position along the target, the cross section
952: is independent of $x,y,$ and $z$. The cross section is then just a function
953: of $\delta$, $x^\prime$, and $y^\prime$. This means that we can now integrate
954: over $x,y$, and $z$ over the region of interest (as defined by the position
955: and size of the beam and target), and come up with an acceptance function in
956: terms of just $\delta$, $x^\prime$, and $y^\prime$ which takes into account
957: the acceptance of the spectrometer in $x,y,z,$ and which is independent of the
958: scattering kinematics:
959:
960: \begin{equation}
961: N=\int d\delta dx^\prime dy^\prime \cdot \sigma(\delta,x^\prime,y^\prime)
962: \int dx dy dz \cdot A^6 \equiv
963: \int d\delta dx^\prime dy^\prime \cdot \sigma(\delta,x^\prime,y^\prime)
964: \cdot A^3(\delta,x^\prime,y^\prime).
965: \label{accepdef2}
966: \end{equation}
967:
968: In order to further simplify the acceptance function, we can
969: fix the central angle of the spectrometer, and convert from $x^\prime$ and
970: $y^\prime$ to the in-plane and out-of-plane scattering angles $\theta$ and
971: $\phi$. Because the inclusive cross section is independent of $\phi$, we can
972: integrate over $\phi$ and define a two-variable acceptance function,
973: $A^2(\delta,\theta) = \int A^3(\delta,\theta,\phi) d\phi$, such that
974:
975: \begin{equation}
976: N=\int d\delta d\theta \cdot \sigma(\delta,\theta) \cdot A^2(\delta,\theta).
977: \label{accepdef3}
978: \end{equation}
979:
980: We can generate events in $x,y,z,\delta,\theta,$ and $\phi$ in the Monte
981: Carlo, and bin the results as a function of just $\delta$ and $\theta$ in
982: order to determine the acceptance of the spectrometer. The Monte Carlo model
983: has three main elements: the event generator, the transportation of the
984: particle through the magnets, and the list of materials and apertures that
985: cause multiple scattering or stop the particles. The event generator creates
986: a large set of initial particles distributed uniformly in $\delta$, $\theta$,
987: $\phi$, $x$, $y$, and $z$. The particles are then run forward through the
988: model of the spectrometer, and focal plane tracks are recorded for all
989: particles which make it all of the way through the detector stack. These
990: tracks are reconstructed to the target in the same way as the measured events.
991:
992: \begin{table}
993: \begin{center}
994: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c||} \hline
995: HMS & $x_{fp}$ & $x^\prime_{fp}$ & $y_{fp}$ & $y^\prime_{fp}$ \\ \hline
996: $x_{tar}$ & -3.0821 & 0.05681 & 0 & 0 \\
997: $x^\prime_{tar}$ & 0.1555 & -0.3273 & 0 & 0 \\
998: $y_{tar}$ & 0 & 0 & -2.2456 & -0.2569 \\
999: $y^\prime_{tar}$ & 0 & 0 & 1.4135 & -0.2836 \\
1000: $\delta$ & 3.7044 & -0.001688 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
1001: \end{tabular}
1002: \caption[SOS 1st Order Forwards Matrix Elements]
1003: {HMS 1st order forwards matrix elements. $x$ and $y$ are in meters, $x^\prime$
1004: and $y^\prime$ are slopes (unitless), and $\delta$ the fractional energy
1005: difference from the central spectrometer setting ($\delta = (p-p_0)/p_0)$.}
1006: \label{hms1st}
1007: \end{center}
1008: \end{table}
1009:
1010: The magnetic portion of the spectrometer is modeled using the COSY
1011: INFINITY program from MSU\cite{cosy95}. COSY takes a list of positions,
1012: fields, and lengths for the quadrupoles and dipoles in the spectrometer
1013: and generates a forward matrix that converts from rays at the target
1014: to rays at the focal point (or any other point in the spectrometer). The
1015: transport matrix calculates the focal plane quantities ($x_{fp},x^\prime_{fp},
1016: y_{fp}$, and $y^\prime_{fp}$) based on the target quantities
1017: $x_{tar},x^\prime_{tar},y_{tar},y^\prime_{tar}$, and $\delta= (p-p_0)/p_0$,
1018: where $p_0$ is the central momentum setting of the spectrometer. The expansion
1019: for each of the focal plane quantities is of the following form:
1020:
1021: \begin{equation}
1022: x_{fp}= \sum_{i,j,k,l,m} F^x_{ijklm} \cdot
1023: x_{tar}^i y_{tar}^j (x^\prime_{tar})^k (y^\prime_{tar})^l \delta^m
1024: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (1 \leq i+j+k+l+m \leq N)
1025: \end{equation}
1026: where N is the order of the expansion, $F^x_{ijlkm}$ is one column of the
1027: forward transport matrix (one column for each of the four focal plane
1028: quantities), and $i,j,k,l,$ and $m$ are integers between 0 and $N$. For the
1029: HMS, the forward transport matrix is calculated to 5th order, and for the SOS
1030: it is calculated to 6th order. In both cases, a significant fraction of the
1031: matrix elements are zero. For example, because of mid-plane symmetry, all
1032: terms contributing to $y_{fp}$ and $y^\prime_{fp}$ are zero if the combined
1033: power of the $y_{tar}$ and $y^\prime_{tar}$ terms is even ({\it i.e.} if j+l
1034: is even). Tables \ref{hms1st} and \ref{sos1st} show the first order forwards
1035: matrix elements for the HMS and SOS.
1036:
1037: \begin{table}
1038: \begin{center}
1039: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c||} \hline
1040: SOS & $x_{fp}$ & $x^\prime_{fp}$ & $y_{fp}$ & $y^\prime_{fp}$ \\ \hline
1041: $x_{tar}$ & -0.3456 & -1.2862 & 0 & 0 \\
1042: $x^\prime_{tar}$ & 0.0003036 & -2.8920 & 0 & 0 \\
1043: $y_{tar}$ & 0 & 0 & -5.749836 & -1.0716 \\
1044: $y^\prime_{tar}$ & 0 & 0 & -0.001314 & -0.1742 \\
1045: $\delta$ & 0.8844 & 0.08832 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
1046: \end{tabular}
1047: \caption[SOS 1st Order Forwards Matrix Elements]
1048: {SOS 1st order forward matrix elements. $x$ and $y$ are in meters, $x^\prime$
1049: and $y^\prime$ are slopes (unitless), and $\delta$ the fractional energy
1050: difference from the central spectrometer setting ($\delta = (p-p_0)/p_0)$.}
1051: \label{sos1st}
1052: \end{center}
1053: \end{table}
1054:
1055:
1056: COSY is used to generate forward matrices that take an event from
1057: the target to several points in the magnetic system, not just the focal plane.
1058: The events are transported to the beginning and end of each magnet in order to
1059: reject events that are outside of the acceptance of the magnets. In addition,
1060: the position for the event is determined 2/3 of the way through Q1 and Q2 in
1061: order to reject events that hit the inside of the magnet. COSY also generates
1062: reconstruction matrices, used to determine the target quantities
1063: $y_{fp},x^\prime_{fp},y^\prime_{fp}$, and $\delta$ from the focal plane
1064: tracks. Because $\delta$ is not directly measured at the focal plane, only
1065: four quantities can be reconstructed. For purposes of calculating the
1066: reconstruction matrix elements, the events are assumed to come from
1067: $x_{fp}$=0, where $x_{fp}$ is the vertical position at the target. Thus, the
1068: reconstruction of the target quantities is of the form:
1069:
1070: \begin{equation}
1071: y_{tar}= \sum_{i,j,k,l} R^y_{ijkl} \cdot
1072: x_{fp}^i y_{fp}^j (x^\prime_{fp})^k (y^\prime_{fp})^l
1073: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (1 \leq i+j+k+l \leq N)
1074: \end{equation}
1075: where $R^y_{ijkl}$ is one column of the reconstruction transport matrix. For
1076: the HMS, the COSY generated reconstruction matrix elements were used to
1077: reconstruct the target quantities from the measured focal plane quantities in
1078: the real data. For the SOS, the reconstruction matrix elements were fitted
1079: from data. The fitting procedure is described in \cite{recon_code} and
1080: involved fitting sieve slit data in order to reconstruct the angles, elastic
1081: data (with a known $p$-$\theta$ correlation) to reconstruct momentum, and
1082: sieve slit data from targets at different positions along the beam to
1083: reconstruct $y_{tar}$. For the HMS, the COSY reconstruction matrix elements
1084: were used because elastic data was not available over the entire range of
1085: momenta needed for the analysis of the e89-008 data. However, comparison
1086: of the data to the Monte Carlo (sections \ref{subsection_hms} and
1087: \ref{sec_elastic}) and the reconstruction of the sieve slit data (section
1088: \ref{subsection_hms}) indicate that the COSY matrix elements give a good
1089: reconstruction of the data.
1090:
1091: Finally, multiple scattering effects are applied to the events, and cuts
1092: representing physical apertures or software cuts applied to the real data are
1093: applied to the events. The most significant multiple scattering occurs
1094: in the target material and scattering chamber exit window. While there
1095: is greater multiple scattering in the detector material itself, the scattering
1096: that occurs before the particle passes through the magnets has the most
1097: significant effect on the resolution. Gaussian multiple scattering was
1098: applied to the events for scattering in the target and the scattering chamber
1099: exit window and spectrometer entrance window. The particles were projected
1100: forward to the slit box, and particles outside of the octagonal collimator
1101: were rejected. The events were transported through the magnetic field to
1102: various points in the spectrometer using the COSY generated forward
1103: matrix elements. Cuts were applied at the entrance and exit of each magnet,
1104: at a point 2/3 of the way through Q1 and Q2, and at the beamline apertures
1105: between the dipole exit and the entrance to the detector hut. Events that hit
1106: the magnets or apertures in the spectrometer are rejected. Particles that
1107: reached the detector hut were projected through each of the detector systems,
1108: with multiple scattering applied for the detectors and the air in the hut.
1109: Events which missed detector elements that are required in the trigger or in
1110: the data analysis were thrown out. The position at the wire chamber planes
1111: were smeared out with the wire chamber resolution and recorded, and tracks
1112: were fit through the `measured' positions. This track was reconstructed to the
1113: target using the COSY reconstruction matrices. The COSY matrix elements were
1114: used for reconstruction for both the HMS and SOS Monte Carlos. Even though we
1115: fit the reconstruction matrix elements for the SOS data analysis, we use the
1116: COSY values in the Monte Carlo so that we have a consistent model for both
1117: forwards and backwards reconstruction. Then, the cuts that were applied to the
1118: reconstructed data were applied to the Monte Carlo events. The events that
1119: passed through the spectrometer and were reconstructed to the target were
1120: binned in $\delta$ and $\theta$. The acceptance for a given $\delta, \theta$
1121: bin is defined as the number of events that pass all cuts and are
1122: reconstructed into that bin divided by the expected number of events generated
1123: in that bin ({\it i.e.} the total number of generated events divided by the
1124: number of (equally sized) $\delta, \theta$ bins).
1125:
1126: The Monte Carlo distributions of events at the focal plane were
1127: compared to the distributions from the data. From this, offsets between the
1128: detectors in the Monte Carlo and in the spectrometer were determined, and
1129: these offsets were applied to the Monte Carlo. It was noted that the Monte
1130: Carlo events were being cut off by the vacuum pipe between the HMS dipole and
1131: the detector hut, while in the real data, events were not being lost. Because
1132: the vacuum pipe was not precisely surveyed in the spectrometer, it was shifted
1133: down 2.0 cm in the model in order to match the cuts seen in the data.
1134:
1135: \begin{figure}[htb]
1136: \begin{center}
1137: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1138: \epsfig{file=hmsaccep.ps,width=5.0in,height=3.0in}
1139: \end{center}
1140: \caption[HMS $\delta$ and $\theta$ Acceptance]
1141: {HMS $\delta$ and $\theta$ acceptance for $55^\circ$. The top figures
1142: are for a point target, the bottom for a 4cm target. The curves are arbitrarily
1143: normalized to one at the peak value.}
1144: \label{hmsaccep}
1145: \end{figure}
1146:
1147: \begin{figure}[htb]
1148: \begin{center}
1149: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1150: \epsfig{file=sosaccep.ps,width=5.0in,height=3.0in}
1151: \end{center}
1152: \caption[SOS $\delta$ and $\theta$ Acceptance]
1153: {SOS $\delta$ and $\theta$ acceptance for $55^\circ$. The top figures
1154: are for a point target, the bottom for a 4cm target. The curves are arbitrarily
1155: normalized to one at the peak value.}
1156: \label{sosaccep}
1157: \end{figure}
1158:
1159: Figure \ref{hmsaccep} shows the HMS $\delta$ and $\theta$ acceptance
1160: at $55^\circ$ for a point target, and for the short (4.2cm) target. Note that
1161: at $55^\circ$, the target length as seen by the spectrometer is 3.4cm.
1162: Figure \ref{sosaccep} shows the SOS acceptance for a point and 4cm target
1163: at $55^\circ$. In both cases, the acceptance is normalized to one for the
1164: central $\delta$ or $\theta$ value. For the SOS, the extended target
1165: causes a significant loss of events as $| \delta |$ increases.
1166: Section \ref{sec_elastic} shows comparisons of the data to Monte Carlo
1167: for a version of the Monte Carlo which has the elastic cross section.
1168: This allows us to compare the data to the Monte Carlo directly, without
1169: having to divide the cross section out of the data.
1170:
1171: Rather than dividing the acceptance out of the data for each
1172: $\delta,\theta$ bin, the acceptance correction was applied at the same
1173: time as the bin centering corrections in order to reduce the systematic
1174: uncertainties and model dependence of that correction. The procedure is
1175: described in detail in the following section.
1176:
1177: \subsection{Bin Centering Corrections}\label{sec_bincorr}
1178:
1179: In order to measure the cross section at fixed values of $p$ and
1180: $\theta$, we must bin the data and make a correction to convert from binned
1181: counts (which represent the integral of the cross section over the bin)
1182: to the value of the cross section at the center of the bin. The goal of the analysis was to extract the
1183: cross section for a range of $p$ values at a fixed angle. Therefore, the
1184: initial procedure involved binning the data into small $p$,$\theta$ bins,
1185: corresponding to the $\delta,\theta$ bins used in determining the spectrometer
1186: acceptance. Each bin then was corrected by the Monte Carlo acceptance for that bin. The
1187: acceptance corrected counts were then rebinned into 15 MeV momentum bins and
1188: summed over the full $\theta$ acceptance of the spectrometer ($\sim$$\pm 25$ mr
1189: for the HMS, $\sim$ $\pm 60$ mr for the SOS). The cross section variation over
1190: the 15 MeV $p$ bin was generally small, and the correction was determined by
1191: taking a model cross section and calculating the ratio of the central cross
1192: section to the average cross section over the momentum bin:
1193:
1194: \begin{equation}
1195: \label{bincentp}
1196: \mbox{$p$ Binning Correction} = \frac{\sigma^*(p_0,\theta) \cdot \Delta p} {
1197: \int_{p_0 - \Delta p / 2}^{p_0 + \Delta p / 2} \sigma^*(p,\theta) dp
1198: },
1199: \end{equation}
1200: where $\sigma^*$ is the model differential cross section, and $\Delta p$
1201: is the momentum bin size. Since the number of counts in a $p$ bin measures the
1202: integral of the cross section over that bin (the denominator in the above
1203: expression), multiplying the measured counts by this bin correction factor
1204: yields the central value of the cross section. Because this correction is
1205: small (usually $<$1\%, and always $\ltorder$5\%) and the model has been
1206: adjusted to reproduce the data, the uncertainty on this correction is quite
1207: small.
1208:
1209: This procedure can be extended to take into account both the
1210: $p$ bin and the $\theta$ binning:
1211:
1212: \begin{equation}
1213: \label{bincentpt}
1214: \mbox{($p,\theta$) Binning Correction} =
1215: \frac{\sigma^*(p_0,\theta_0) \cdot \Delta p \cdot \Delta \theta} {
1216: \int_{\theta_0 - \Delta \theta / 2}^{\theta_0 + \Delta \theta / 2}
1217: \int_{p_0 - \Delta p / 2}^{p_0 + \Delta p / 2} \sigma^*(p,\theta) dp d\theta
1218: }.
1219: \end{equation}
1220:
1221: However, as noted before, the $\theta$ bin size is the entire $\theta$
1222: acceptance of the spectrometer. Over this range, the cross section variations
1223: can be very large (more than an order of magnitude). In this case the
1224: correction is often large, and the model dependence in this correction can be
1225: the dominant systematic uncertainty in the analysis.
1226:
1227: There were two changes made to the above procedure in order to reduce the size
1228: and the uncertainty of this correction. Note that a linear variation to the
1229: cross section over the acceptance will have no bin centering correction, and
1230: only higher order variations will produce a correction. Therefore, the bin
1231: centering correction, coming from higher order variations of the cross
1232: section, will grow rapidly with the size of the $\theta$ bin. This means that
1233: one could reduce the size of the correction by applying a tight $\theta$ cut.
1234: This would reduce the correction, but would also throw out a large part of the
1235: data. However, the $\theta$ range is already limited by the acceptance of the
1236: spectrometer. When we apply the acceptance correction, we increase the weight
1237: of the counts at the edges in $\theta$, where the acceptance is falling off.
1238: This is done so that the measured counts represent the incoming counts, before
1239: they are cut out by the collimator. We then are measuring the counts over the
1240: full $\theta$ range of the spectrometer, and so in the bin centering
1241: correction we compare the central value of the cross section to the integral
1242: over the full $\theta$ range. If we do not correct for the $\theta$
1243: acceptance, then we are measuring the cross section times the acceptance, and
1244: therefore reduce the weight of the measurement when $\theta$ is far from the
1245: central angle. We can modify our procedure to take advantage of the fact that
1246: the data has reduced acceptance at large angles by rewriting equation
1247: (\ref{bincentpt}) with the {\it acceptance weighted} cross section in the
1248: denominator:
1249:
1250: \begin{equation}
1251: \label{bincentptaccep}
1252: \mbox{($p,\theta$) Binning Correction} =
1253: \frac{\sigma^*(p_0,\theta_0) \cdot \Delta p \cdot \Delta \theta} {
1254: \int_{\theta_0 - \Delta \theta / 2}^{\theta_0 + \Delta \theta / 2}
1255: \int_{p_0 - \Delta p / 2}^{p_0 + \Delta p / 2}
1256: A(p,\theta) \cdot \sigma^*(p,\theta) dp d\theta
1257: }.
1258: \end{equation}
1259:
1260: The denominator now represents the acceptance weighted counts, which gives
1261: less weight to the values of $\theta$ far from the central angle, thus
1262: reducing the correction. This means that by applying the acceptance
1263: correction at the same time as the bin centering, we can reduce the size of
1264: the binning correction, and therefore the associated uncertainty.
1265:
1266: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1267: \begin{center}
1268: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1269: \epsfig{file=THESIS_thetadep.ps,width=5.0in}
1270: \end{center}
1271: \caption[Cross Section as a Function of $p$, $x$, and $\xi$]
1272: {Cross section for all HMS angles as a function of $p$, $x$, and $\xi$.}
1273: \label{thetadep}
1274: \end{figure}
1275:
1276: The other improvement involved binning the data in different variables.
1277: Once we have applied the bin centering correction, we are looking at the cross
1278: section at a fixed valued of $p$ and $\theta$. At that point, we can freely
1279: translate to any other desired variables that specify the kinematics. This
1280: means that if we start with variables other than $p$ and $\theta$, bin the
1281: data and apply acceptance and bin centering corrections, we can convert back
1282: to the desired $p$ and $\theta$ values. Thus, if we can replace $p$ with some
1283: other variable, over which the $\theta$ variation of the cross section is
1284: smaller, we can bin the data over $\theta$ and have a significantly smaller
1285: bin centering correction than when we use $p$ and $\theta$. Figure
1286: \ref{thetadep} shows the cross section for all of the angles as a function of
1287: $p$, $x$, and $\xi$. For fixed p, the cross section varies by a factor
1288: between 5 and 200 over the theta acceptance of the HMS ($\sim 3^\circ$, or
1289: roughly 1/2 to 1/3 of the spacing for the angles shown). This is what causes
1290: the large correction using the method of equation (\ref{bincentpt}). The
1291: correction is especially large at the higher values of $p$, corresponding to
1292: the large $Q^2$ values which are of the most interest, and where the model
1293: cross section is least well known. For fixed values of $x$, the cross section
1294: variation over the HMS $\theta$ acceptance is typically a factor of 1.5 to 3,
1295: and is always $\ltorder 10$. The $\theta$ variation for fixed $\xi$ is even
1296: smaller, usually less than a factor of 2, and is smallest at the high $Q^2$
1297: values (corresponding to large scattering angles). Therefore, by binning
1298: in $\xi$ and $\theta$, and including the acceptance in the correction, rather
1299: than directly to the binned counts, we have a significantly smaller bin
1300: centering correction of the form:
1301:
1302: \begin{equation}
1303: \label{bincentxitaccep}
1304: \mbox{($\xi,\theta$) Binning Correction} =
1305: \frac{\sigma^*(\xi_0,\theta_0) \cdot \Delta \xi \cdot \Delta \theta} {
1306: \int_{\theta_0 - \Delta \theta / 2}^{\theta_0 + \Delta \theta / 2}
1307: \int_{\xi_0 - \Delta \xi / 2}^{\xi_0 + \Delta \xi / 2}
1308: A(\xi,\theta) \cdot \sigma^*(\xi,\theta) d\xi d\theta
1309: },
1310: \end{equation}
1311: where $\sigma^*$ is now the differential cross section
1312: $\frac{d\sigma}{d\xi d\Omega}$, rather than $\frac{d\sigma}{dp d\Omega}$.
1313:
1314: Figure \ref{bincent_thesis1} shows the size of the bin centering correction
1315: for 30$\deg$, taking fixed $p, x,$ or $\xi$ and binning over a $\pm$1.4$\deg$
1316: bin. For each variable, the correction was calculated using two models in
1317: order to estimate the model dependence. The top line is using our final model
1318: of the cross section (see section \ref{sec_model}). The bottom line comes
1319: from adding an additional $Q^2$ dependence to the model. The
1320: standard model is typically within 10\% of the data (and always within 30\%),
1321: and has small ($<$10\%) variations in the ratio of data to model when
1322: comparing different angles. The modified model ($\sigma^* = \sigma \cdot
1323: \frac{Q^2}{\langle Q^2\rangle }$) introduces large discrepancies between the model and
1324: data (up to a factor of 5), and introduces a large angular variation
1325: in the ratio of data to model. While this severely overestimates the
1326: uncertainty in the $\theta$ dependence of the model, it still leads to a
1327: small uncertainty in the correction when taking fixed $\xi$.
1328:
1329: \begin{figure}[htb]
1330: \begin{center}
1331: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1332: \epsfig{file=bincent_thesis1.ps,width=5.5in,height=2.8in}
1333: \end{center}
1334: \caption[Bin Centering Corrections at 30$\deg$]
1335: {Bin centering corrections at 30$\deg$ for a $\pm$1.4$\deg$ bin. The dotted
1336: line is the correction at fixed $p$, dashed is for fixed $x$, and solid is
1337: for fixed $\xi$. The top line in each case represents the correction calculated
1338: using the standard cross section model. The bottom line is for the model with
1339: a large $Q^2$ dependence, used to estimate the uncertainty in the correction.}
1340: \label{bincent_thesis1}
1341: \end{figure}
1342:
1343:
1344: In the real data, the acceptance does not always include a symmetric region
1345: in $\theta$ about the central value in $\xi$. The acceptance of the
1346: spectrometer is a roughly rectangular region in $\delta$ and $\theta$.
1347: A fixed $\xi$ bin is a roughly straight line through the $\delta$,$\theta$
1348: acceptance region, as shown in figure \ref{xibins}. For a value of $\xi$
1349: corresponding to $\delta=0$, $\theta=\theta_0$, the entire $\theta$ range
1350: is included in the bin. For $\xi$ bins corresponding to high or low values
1351: of $\delta$ (at the central angle), only part of the $\theta$ acceptance
1352: lies within the spectrometer acceptance. Therefore, the bin centering
1353: corrections are largest at the edge of the momentum acceptance, where a
1354: bin of fixed $\xi$ only includes half of the $\theta$ acceptance. Instead of
1355: comparing the average cross section to the central value, we are comparing the
1356: average to the extreme value, and so the maximum bin centering corrections
1357: occur at the edge of the acceptance. Figure \ref{bincent_thesis2} shows the
1358: correction for a bin extending from 30$\deg$ to 31.4$\deg$, and represents
1359: the maximum possible correction (and maximum uncertainty) for the 30$\deg$
1360: data.
1361:
1362: \begin{figure}[htb]
1363: \begin{center}
1364: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1365: \epsfig{file=xibin.eps,width=3.5in}
1366: \end{center}
1367: \caption[Fixed $\xi$ Bins Within the Spectrometer Acceptance.]
1368: {Fixed $\xi$ bins within the rectangular $\delta$-$\theta$ acceptance of
1369: the spectrometers. For central $\xi$ bins, the entire range of the $\theta$
1370: acceptance is included in the bin. For the highest and lowest values of
1371: $\xi$, only half of the $\theta$ acceptance lies within the $\theta$ bin.}
1372: \label{xibins}
1373: \end{figure}
1374:
1375:
1376: \begin{figure}[htb]
1377: \begin{center}
1378: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1379: \epsfig{file=bincent_thesis2.ps,width=5.5in,height=2.8in}
1380: \end{center}
1381: \caption[Asymmetric Bin Centering Corrections at 30$\deg$]
1382: {Bin centering corrections at 30$\deg$ for bin from 30$\deg$-31.4$\deg$. The
1383: dotted line is the correction at fixed $p$, dashed is for fixed $x$, and solid
1384: is for fixed $\xi$. The top line in each case represents the correction
1385: calculated using the standard cross section model. The bottom line is for the
1386: model with a large $Q^2$ dependence, used to estimate the uncertainty in the
1387: correction.}
1388: \label{bincent_thesis2}
1389: \end{figure}
1390:
1391: We apply an overall 1\% systematic uncertainty in the cross section due to the
1392: bin centering correction. In addition, we apply an additional systematic
1393: uncertainty equal to 10\% of the correction made. The maximum bin centering
1394: correction (for 15$\deg$, very low $\nu$) is 20\%, leading to a 2\% uncertainty
1395: in the correction (in addition to the 1\% overall uncertainty).
1396:
1397: Because the correction for the cross section variation over the $\xi$ bin
1398: is small, it is a good approximation to separate the binning centering
1399: correction into two pieces. By separating the $\xi$ and $\theta$ bin centering
1400: corrections, the corrections involve one dimensional integrals over the
1401: model cross section, rather than a two-dimensional integral. This
1402: significantly reduces the time required to calculate the correction.
1403:
1404: In order to check the acceptance and bin centering correction, runs with
1405: significant overlap in momentum were taken. This allows us to have multiple
1406: measurements of the same cross section, taken in different regions of the
1407: spectrometer. Figure \ref{hmsoverlap} shows the cross sections (in arbitrary
1408: units) from three runs with central momentum settings of 2.06, 2.20, and 2.36
1409: GeV/c. It also shows the difference between the fit and the individual
1410: points as a function of $\delta$. The typical deviations from the fit are
1411: consistent with statistical uncertainties of the individual points
1412: ($\chi^2_\nu$ = 1.10 for 72 degrees of freedom), and a systematic uncertainty
1413: of 1\% is applied to the acceptance at the peak value. Figure \ref{sosoverlap}
1414: shows overlapping runs for the SOS, at central momentum settings of 1.43,
1415: 1.56, and 1.70 GeV/c. For the SOS, the average residual is somewhat larger
1416: than expected from the statistics of the points ($\chi^2_\nu$=1.31 for 65
1417: degrees of freedom), and the systematic uncertainty is somewhat larger (1.3\%
1418: at the center of the acceptance)
1419:
1420: \begin{figure}[htb]
1421: \begin{center}
1422: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1423: \epsfig{file=hoverlap_thesis.ps,width=5.5in}
1424: \end{center}
1425: \caption[Normalized Yield and Fractional Deviations for Overlapping HMS Runs]
1426: {Normalized yield and fractional deviations for overlapping HMS runs at
1427: 30$\deg$, p=2.06, 2.20, and 2.36 GeV/c.}
1428: \label{hmsoverlap}
1429: \end{figure}
1430:
1431: \begin{figure}[htb]
1432: \begin{center}
1433: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1434: \epsfig{file=soverlap_thesis.ps,width=5.5in}
1435: \end{center}
1436: \caption[Normalized Yield and Fractional Deviations for Overlapping SOS Runs]
1437: {Normalized yield and fractional deviations for overlapping SOS runs at
1438: 30$\deg$, p=1.43, 1.56, and 1.70 GeV/c.}
1439: \label{sosoverlap}
1440: \end{figure}
1441:
1442:
1443: The data is cut when the acceptance for a $\xi$ bin falls below 50\% of the
1444: maximum acceptance. The uncertainty associated with the acceptance is 1\%
1445: (1.3\% in the SOS) combined in quadrature with 4\% of the difference between
1446: the acceptance for the bin and the maximum acceptance. Therefore, for a bin
1447: with an acceptance of 0.5, the systematic uncertainty is
1448: $(.01^2+(.04*(1-0.5))^2)=2.2$\%. In $\delta$ and $\theta$, the acceptance is
1449: roughly rectangular, and falls from 1 to 0 very quickly. Where the acceptance
1450: drops very rapidly, the Monte Carlo is very sensitive to small offsets or
1451: differences in resolution. Therefore, the uncertainty is large for a $\delta$
1452: bin at the edge of the acceptance. However, when the data is taken as a
1453: function of $\xi$, the decrease in the acceptance comes mainly from the fact
1454: that the kinematic transformation between $\xi$ and $\delta$ means that only a
1455: certain portion of the $\xi$ bin has acceptance. Because the fraction that is
1456: populated comes from the mapping between $\xi$ and $\delta$ rather than losses
1457: at the edges of the spectrometer, it is less sensitive to any small
1458: offsets or resolution differences. Therefore, the uncertainty in acceptance
1459: correction is relatively insensitive to the size of the correction, and even
1460: for an acceptance of 0.5 (which leads to a 100\% correction in the cross
1461: section), the uncertainty is small.
1462:
1463:
1464:
1465: \subsection{Radiative Corrections}\label{sec_radcor}
1466:
1467: The measured cross sections are also corrected in order to remove the
1468: effects of internal and external bremsstrahlung and energy loss in the target.
1469: The radiative corrections were applied using the same procedure as was used
1470: in the NE3 experiment\cite{dhpthesis}. Radiative effects are applied to a
1471: model cross section, using the radiative correction calculations of
1472: Stein {\it et al.}\cite{stein75}, which are based on the work of Mo and Tsai
1473: \cite{motsai} and Tsai\cite{tsai71}. In addition, energy loss of the
1474: electron in the target, and in the spectrometer entrance window are applied,
1475: in order to reproduce the cross section measured in the experiment.
1476: The corrected model is compared to the measured cross section, and the model
1477: cross section is modified to improve the agreement. This procedure is
1478: repeated until the radiative model is consistent with the data. The radiative
1479: correction for each point is determined by comparing the model before and
1480: after the radiative effects have been applied. The measured cross sections
1481: are then multiplied by the ratio of the radiative model to the non-radiative
1482: model in order to remove the effect of the radiative losses.
1483:
1484: The model used was the sum of a modified $y$-scaling model of the
1485: quasielastic cross section and a convolution calculation for the deep inelastic
1486: cross section \cite{benhar97}. The model is described in detail in section
1487: \ref{sec_model}. After each iteration, the model is multiplied by a smooth
1488: function of $W^2$, the missing mass, in order to improve agreement with the
1489: model. At each step of the corrections procedure the model non-radiative
1490: cross section is of the form:
1491:
1492: \begin{equation}
1493: \sigma_{nr}^* = f_i(W^2) \cdot (\sigma_{qe}^* + \sigma_{dis}^*)
1494: \end{equation}
1495:
1496: Initially, we start with no correction to the model cross section,
1497: {\it i.e.} $f_0(W^2) = 1$. After applying the radiative effects to the
1498: model, the radiated model is compared to the measured cross section,
1499: and the model is adjusted by modifying the function $f$ at the points
1500: where we have data ($W_n^2$):
1501:
1502: \begin{equation}
1503: f_i^*(W_n^2) = f_{i-1}(W_n^2) * \frac{\sigma_{meas}(W_n^2)}{\sigma_r^*(W_n^2)}.
1504: \end{equation}
1505:
1506: $f_i^*(W_n^2)$ is then smoothed using a cubic smoothing spline calculated
1507: using CUBGCV\cite{cubgcv}) in order to generate $f_i(W^2)$ for the next
1508: iteration. This procedure is complete when the radiated model is consistent
1509: with the data, {\it i.e.} when $\chi^2_\nu \leq 1$, where:
1510:
1511: \begin{equation}
1512: \chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{(\sigma_{meas}(W_n^2)/\sigma_r^*(W_n^2)) - 1}
1513: {(\delta \sigma_r^i/ \sigma_r^i)^2}.
1514: \end{equation}
1515:
1516:
1517: In order to examine the model dependence of the correction, the procedure was
1518: tested with three different models. Figure \ref{model_thesis} shows the three
1519: models used. The solid line is the standard model, described in section
1520: \ref{sec_model}. The dashed line is for a model with the `smearing' of the
1521: nucleon structure functions removed ($F_2^A = Z F_2^p + N F_2^n$, no
1522: convolution with $f(z)$), and with the quasielastic ($y$-scaling) model
1523: calculated for an energy loss 20\% farther from the quasielastic peak, and
1524: with a 20\% increase in the normalization. This leads to a model where the
1525: quasielastic and resonance peaks are significantly narrower and higher, and
1526: the cross section is not as smooth as a function of $\nu$. The dashed line is
1527: for an initial model with a flat cross section (10 nb/Mev/sr). Figure
1528: \ref{thesis_radcor} shows the radiative correction factor for the 15$\deg$
1529: data using three different initial models. The top figure is the radiative
1530: correction factor ($\sigma_{nr}^* / \sigma_{r}^*$) for the standard model used
1531: to analyze the data. The bottom figure shows the correction for two different
1532: models, divided by the correction for the standard model. The dashed and
1533: dotted lines correspond to the modified models shown in figure
1534: \ref{model_thesis}. For both models, over a range of radiative correction
1535: factor from 1.2 to 1.5, the calculated radiative correction factors have only
1536: a small model dependence.
1537:
1538: \begin{figure}[htb]
1539: \begin{center}
1540: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1541: \epsfig{file=model_thesis.ps,width=5.5in,height=2.8in}
1542: \end{center}
1543: \caption[Cross Section Models Used to Test the Radiative Correction Procedure]
1544: {Three different cross section models used to test the radiative correction
1545: procedure. The solid line is the standard model (for Iron at 15$\deg$).
1546: The dashed line has the `smearing' of the nucleon structure functions removed
1547: for the inelastic contributions, and decreases the width of the quasielastic
1548: peak by 20\%, keeping the normalization fixed. The dashed line is a constant
1549: cross section of 10 nb/MeV/sr.}
1550: \label{model_thesis}
1551: \end{figure}
1552:
1553: \begin{figure}[htb]
1554: \begin{center}
1555: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1556: \epsfig{file=thesis_radcor.ps,width=5.5in,height=4.5in}
1557: \end{center}
1558: \caption[Model Dependence of the Radiative Corrections]
1559: {Radiative correction factor for three different input models. The top curve
1560: is the correction factor for the three model shown in figure
1561: \ref{model_thesis}. The bottom curve shows the correction factor divided by
1562: the value for the standard model used in the analysis.}
1563: \label{thesis_radcor}
1564: \end{figure}
1565:
1566: In addition to checking the model dependence, we can test the external
1567: radiative correction procedure by examining data from targets of different
1568: thicknesses, and insuring that the corrected cross sections are identical.
1569: Figure \ref{thesis_radcor3} shows the cross section for data taken at identical
1570: kinematics with the thin and thick Iron targets. The thin target is 1.54\% of
1571: a radiation length, and has a radiative correction of between 12\% and 24\%.
1572: The thick target (5.84\% of a radiation length) has a correction that varies
1573: between 20\% and 45\%. Therefore, the measured cross sections differ by
1574: $\sim$10-20\%. However, after applying the radiative corrections, the cross
1575: sections are in good agreement. The ratio of thick to thin is
1576: 1.0078$\pm$0.0052, which is smaller than the uncertainty in the ratio of the
1577: target thicknesses. Another run, taken at different kinematics and with
1578: significantly lower statistics, gives a ratio of 1.0326$\pm$0.014. From the
1579: model dependence, and tests with different target thicknesses, we assign a
1580: 2.5\% systematic uncertainty to the radiative corrections.
1581:
1582:
1583: \begin{figure}[htb]
1584: \begin{center}
1585: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1586: \epsfig{file=thesis_radcor3.ps,width=5.5in}
1587: \end{center}
1588: \caption[Radiative Corrections for Targets of Different Thickness.]
1589: {Cross section before and after radiative corrections for two different
1590: Iron targets. The hollow points are the measured cross section, and the
1591: solid points are the cross section after the radiative corrections have
1592: been applied. The boxes are data taken on the thick iron target, and
1593: the diamonds are for the thin iron target. The right figure shows the
1594: ratio of cross sections, after radiative corrections have been applied.}
1595: \label{thesis_radcor3}
1596: \end{figure}
1597:
1598: Because the iterative procedure is applied to each kinematic setting for the
1599: experiment, it is somewhat sensitive to the fit to the cross section at
1600: the low-$\nu$ value of the data range. For values of $\nu$ below the range
1601: of the data, the correction to the model is kept constant at the value
1602: from the lowest $\nu$ point available. Therefore, fluctuations in the
1603: lowest $\nu$ points can have an effect on the model cross section over
1604: a large range of $\nu$ values. The only places where there are large
1605: corrections to the model are at low $\theta$ and low $\nu$. In this
1606: region, the cross section drops rapidly with decreasing $\nu$. Therefore,
1607: the strength coming from this region in the radiative correction is small,
1608: and the model dependence is not very large. However, while the effect
1609: is always relatively small (within the systematic uncertainties we have
1610: assigned), the fluctuations in the data for the low $\nu$ points can cause
1611: a systematic error for a large range of the data at that kinematic setting.
1612: In addition, correcting each kinematic setting independently means that the
1613: error made may be nearly constant for a single momentum and angle setting, but
1614: then jump at the few percent level between different kinematic settings. This
1615: becomes important when comparing the data taken on different targets.
1616: When comparing the structure function per nucleon for the different targets,
1617: the differences are typically small ($\ltorder$10\%). If one takes the
1618: ratio of structure functions as a function of $x$, the systematic
1619: uncertainties can lead to a false $x$ dependence. While the errors made are
1620: within the systematic uncertainties assigned, it is important to remember that
1621: the systematic uncertainties are not uncorrelated between the different
1622: $\nu$ values, nor do they cause an overall offset or normalization to the data
1623: set. An overall systematic uncertainty (a normalization or efficiency
1624: problem) would cancel when taking the ratio of the target, and even if there
1625: was only a partial cancellation, it would not introduce any $x$ dependence to
1626: the ratios. A systematic uncertainty that is uncorrelated between different
1627: points would make it more difficult to determine the $x$ dependence, but would
1628: not tend to introduce systematic differences in the target comparison in
1629: different regions of $x$.
1630:
1631: The radiative correction procedure will be modified when the deuterium data is
1632: analyzed in order to reduce this effect. The plan is to combine all data at a
1633: single spectrometer angle with the appropriate normalization and apply the
1634: radiative correction to all of the data at once. This means that the
1635: extrapolation beyond the range of the data will only be important at the
1636: lowest $\nu$ values, where the cross section falls rapidly, and there is very
1637: little strength gained from lower $\nu$ values. This will produce a smooth
1638: radiative correction over the entire momentum range and eliminate the `jumps'
1639: in the extracted cross section coming from the variations in the radiative
1640: correction factor at different momentum settings.
1641:
1642: \subsection{Coulomb Corrections}\label{sec_coulomb}
1643:
1644: After the incoming electron passes through the atomic electrons of the
1645: target atom, it sees a bare nucleus, and is accelerated by the electric
1646: field of the nucleus. This acceleration leads to an increase in the energy
1647: of the incoming electron, and a decrease in the energy of the scattered
1648: electron. This means that the energy of the initial and scattered electron at
1649: the scattering vertex is not the same as the energies determined by
1650: measurements of the beam energy and the scattered electron momentum. This
1651: change in kinematics can have a significant effect on the measured cross
1652: section. In addition, the electric field of the nucleus can lead to a
1653: deflection of the electron when the scattering occurs at the edge of the
1654: nucleus. This deflection of the electron means that at fixed spectrometer
1655: angle, we are measuring over a range of scattering angles.
1656:
1657: We estimate the effect of the Coulomb energy correction by calculating
1658: the cross section from our model (section \ref{sec_model}) with and without
1659: the energy shift due to the Coulomb acceleration. In order to estimate
1660: the energy shift, we treat the nucleus as a uniform sphere of radius $R_0$.
1661: Then, the electric potential for a point $r$ inside of the nucleus ($r<R_0$)
1662: is given by:
1663:
1664: \begin{equation}
1665: V(r) = - \frac{Ze}{8\pi\epsilon_0 R_0} \left(3-\frac{r^2}{R_0^2}\right).
1666: \label{coulomb1}
1667: \end{equation}
1668:
1669: with $V(\infty)$ defined to be zero. Outside of the electron cloud, the
1670: potential from the nucleus is canceled by the potential from the electrons.
1671: However, at typical electron distances, the potential is $\sim$10$^{-4}$ of the
1672: potential at the surface of the nucleus. We thus neglect the shielding by the
1673: atomic electrons, and the energy change for the electron at the surface of the
1674: nucleus is:
1675:
1676: \begin{equation}
1677: \Delta E (R_0) = e V(R_0) = \frac{Ze^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 R_0} = 1.44 MeV \frac{Z}{R_0}.
1678: \label{coulomb2}
1679: \end{equation}
1680:
1681: Assuming that the scattering occurs uniformly throughout the nucleus,
1682: we calculate the average energy shift for the scattering:
1683:
1684: \begin{equation}
1685: \langle \Delta E\rangle = \frac{\int_0^{R_0} V(r) r^2 dr}{\int_0^{R_0} r^2 dr}
1686: = \frac{6}{5} \Delta E(R_0).
1687: \label{coulomb3}
1688: \end{equation}
1689:
1690: Table \ref{coulombparams} gives the values for $R_0$, $\Delta E(R_0)$, and
1691: $\langle \Delta E\rangle$ used in the correction. Using this average energy
1692: correction, we estimate the correction to the cross section by calculating the
1693: cross section for our model (section \ref{sec_model}) at the nominal
1694: kinematics, and with the Coulomb energy correction applied ($E \rightarrow E +
1695: \langle \Delta E\rangle , E^\prime \rightarrow E^\prime + \langle \Delta
1696: E\rangle$, and $\nu$ remains constant at the point of interaction). We take
1697: the modification of the cross section model as our correction to the data for
1698: the Coulomb energy correction. The correction is roughly proportional to
1699: $\langle \Delta E\rangle$, and averages 2\% for Carbon, 5.5\% for
1700: Iron, and 9.8\% for Gold. The largest corrections to the data occur at
1701: 74$\deg$, and are at most 6\% for Carbon, 15\% for Iron, and 24\% for Gold.
1702:
1703:
1704: \begin{table}
1705: \begin{center}
1706: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c||} \hline
1707: Nucleus & $R_0$ [fm] & $\Delta E(R_0)$ [MeV] & $\langle \Delta E\rangle$ [MeV] & RMS $p_\perp$ [MeV/c] \\ \hline
1708: $^{12}$C & 3.23 & 2.67 & 3.2 & 1.5 \\
1709: $^{56}$Fe & 4.85 & 7.72 & 9.3 & 4.4 \\
1710: $^{197}$Au & 6.88 & 16.53 & 19.8 & 9.8 \\ \hline
1711: \end{tabular}
1712: \caption[Coulomb Correction Parameters.]
1713: {Effective radius, Coulomb energy correction (at surface and averaged over the
1714: nucleus), and RMS transverse momentum kick for the target nuclei. The radius
1715: is taken from \cite{uberall}, and is the effective radius for the nucleus,
1716: assuming a spherical nucleus with uniform charge density.}
1717: \label{coulombparams}
1718: \end{center}
1719: \end{table}
1720:
1721: In addition to the energy change for the initial and scattered electron,
1722: the Coulomb field of the nucleus will lead to a deflection of the electron.
1723: The maximum deflection occurs when the electron grazes the nucleus.
1724: In this case, the incoming electron can be approximated by integrating
1725: the component of the force transverse to the electron direction, neglecting
1726: the change in the trajectory. In this case, the transverse `kick' received
1727: by the electron is:
1728:
1729: \begin{equation}
1730: \Delta p_\perp = \int_{-\infty}^0 F_\perp dt =
1731: \frac{1}{c} \int_{-\infty}^0 F_\perp dr_\parallel = \Delta E(R_0)/c
1732: \label{kick1}
1733: \end{equation}
1734:
1735: The worst case is for gold, where $\Delta p_\perp$=16.5 MeV/c for an electron
1736: at $r_\perp = R_0$. This leads to an angular deflection of $\Delta \theta =
1737: \Delta p_\perp / p_{beam} = 4.1$ mr, which is much larger than the
1738: uncertainty in the $\theta$ reconstruction. In addition, there will be a
1739: transverse kick of similar magnitude to the scattered electron. Because the
1740: scattered electron energy can be much lower than the beam energy (as low as
1741: $\sim$600 MeV), the deflection can be much larger. A Monte Carlo calculation
1742: was used to determine the distribution of $\Delta p_\perp$ for events
1743: generated uniformly within the nucleus. Figure \ref{deflect_thesis} shows the
1744: distribution of $\Delta p_\perp$ for Carbon, Iron, and Gold. The distribution
1745: is relatively flat, and was approximated by a flat distribution with a width
1746: chosen to match the RMS value of the calculated distribution. The correction
1747: to the cross section was determined by comparing the model cross section at
1748: the measured angle to the average value over the $\theta$ range determined by
1749: combining the angular range of the incoming electron ($\Delta \theta = \Delta
1750: p_\perp / p_{beam}$) with the angular range of the scattered electron ($\Delta
1751: \theta^\prime = \Delta p_\perp / p^\prime$). The angular range can be large
1752: for high $\nu$ (low $E^\prime$), but the cross section has the greatest
1753: $\theta$ variation at low $\nu$, and the correction is never very large.
1754: While the angular deflection range is proportional to the $\Delta p_\perp$
1755: kick, the correction grows at least as fast as the square of the angular
1756: range. The correction is $\ltorder$5\% for Gold, $\ltorder$2\% for Iron, and
1757: $\ltorder$0.5\% for Carbon, and has the opposite sign as the correction
1758: for the energy change of the electrons (except when the correction is very
1759: small).
1760:
1761: \begin{figure}[htb]
1762: \begin{center}
1763: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1764: \epsfig{file=deflect_thesis.ps,width=5.5in,height=2.8in}
1765: \end{center}
1766: \caption[Distribution of Transverse Momentum for Electrons in the Coulomb
1767: Field of the Nucleus]
1768: {$\Delta p_\perp$ distribution for electrons due to the Coulomb field of the nucleus.
1769: The distributions are approximated as uniform distributions with
1770: $\Delta p_\perp^{max}$ of 2.7 MeV/c for Carbon, 8.0 MeV/c for Iron, and 17.2 MeV/c
1771: for Gold.}
1772: \label{deflect_thesis}
1773: \end{figure}
1774:
1775: Figure \ref{coulomb_thesis} shows the correction for Iron, as a function of
1776: angle. The crosses show the correction to the model when the coulomb energy
1777: correction is applied, the diamonds show the correction to the model coming
1778: from the deflection of the electrons, and the circles show the combined
1779: effect. For Gold the correction is roughly twice as large, and for Carbon, the
1780: total correction is roughly one third of the correction for Iron. The
1781: Coulomb correction for the Hydrogen elastic scattering data has a negligible
1782: effect on the cross section, and a small effect effect on the measured position
1783: of the $W^2$ peak. However, the effect was small enough that it does not
1784: significantly affect the conclusions of the spectrometer momentum and beam
1785: energy calibration.
1786:
1787: \begin{figure}[htb]
1788: \begin{center}
1789: %\htmlimage{thumbnail=1.0}
1790: \epsfig{file=coulomb_thesis.ps,width=5.5in,height=2.8in}
1791: \end{center}
1792: \caption[Coulomb Corrections for Iron]
1793: {Coulomb corrections for the Iron data. The crosses represent the change
1794: in the model cross section when $\Delta E$ is applied. the diamonds
1795: are the correction when the angular deflection is applied, and the circles
1796: are the combined effect. The correction is roughly twice as large for Gold,
1797: and one third of the size for Carbon. The multiple points at each angle
1798: represent different values of $\nu$. The corrections are largest for the
1799: lowest $\nu$ values.}
1800: \label{coulomb_thesis}
1801: \end{figure}
1802:
1803: The main source of uncertainty in the correction comes from the assumption
1804: that the nucleus can be modeled as a sphere with uniform charge distribution,
1805: and the uncertainty in the radius chosen for the sphere. In addition, it is
1806: assumed that the electron scattering occurs uniformly throughout the volume of
1807: the nucleus. However, the boost in electron energy will modify the cross
1808: section as a function of position from the center of the nucleus, leading to a
1809: slightly non-uniform distribution of events. We estimate that the uncertainty
1810: associated with modeling the nuclei as uniform spheres, and the choice of
1811: radius (given in table \ref{coulombparams}) is less than 8\% of the
1812: correction. The model dependence in calculating the correction is less than
1813: 5\% of the correction. Finally, the maximum difference in cross section
1814: between the center of the nucleus and the edge of the nucleus is $\sim$10\% in
1815: Gold, $\sim$7\% in Iron, and $\sim$2-3\% in Carbon. We assume that the
1816: average effect of including the cross section weighting is always less
1817: than half of the maximum cross section variation, and use half of this value
1818: as the overall uncertainty. In the current analysis, we use the maximum
1819: correction to determine the overall systematic uncertainty for each target,
1820: giving an upper limit for the uncertainty in the extracted cross section of
1821: 0.6\% for Carbon, 1.7\% for Iron, and 2.8\% for Gold. This uncertainty is
1822: fairly small relative to the other systematic uncertainties (typically
1823: 3.5-4.0\%). With a more careful comparison of different models for the
1824: charge distribution and the effects of neglecting the cross section weighting,
1825: these uncertainties should be significantly reduced from their present values,
1826: and should have a negligible effect on the total systematic uncertainties
1827: for Carbon and Iron, and a small effect for Gold.
1828:
1829: As part of the radiative correction procedure, the model cross section is
1830: corrected for radiative effects, and the scattering kinematics are corrected
1831: for energy loss in the target and in the spectrometer vacuum window. However,
1832: while the coulomb correction could also be applied as part of the radiative
1833: correction procedures, there are two advantages to making a separate
1834: correction. First, we need to apply the same correction to the data from
1835: previous measurements \cite{dhpthesis,ne3_xi,ne18_inclusive} in order to
1836: compare results (the analysis of the NE3 data and the inclusive analysis of
1837: the NE18 data did not include coulomb corrections except for the extrapolation
1838: to nuclear matter \cite{day89}). Only the Iron data is compared to the SLAC
1839: results, and the average coulomb correction is $\sim$4\%, and the maximum
1840: correction is 10\%. In addition, while the energy change due to the coulomb
1841: correction is applied as a shift in energy, the deflection of the electron due
1842: to the coulomb field leads to an averaging of the cross section over a range
1843: in $\theta$. Including this in the radiative correction procedure would
1844: significantly increase the CPU time required to determine the radiative
1845: corrections.
1846: