Run III Final Moller Results

E158 Collaboration MeetingJLab

June, 2004

Waled EmamSyracuse University

Outline● Data (2003 & 2004)● Moller Detector Results

– Monopole Asymmetry– Azimuthal Dependence in Moller Detector

● Beam Corrections– First-Order Beam Systematics– Beam False Asymmetries– Comparing Regression and Dithering

Data (2003 & 2004)

- 37 Slugs: 15 Slugs at 45 GeV 22 Slugs at 48 GeV - Number of runs is 1010.- Number of Events is 154.5 MP - For the resluts shown in this talk : MollerEstat weights Moller = IN + MID + OUT Blinded

Yury reprocessed the data in April 2004. He made significant changes in the way that some cuts are applied. This led to significantchanges in the Moller asymmetry value.

* 2003 refers to the data processing that took place in Dec. 2003 while 2004 refers to the reprocessing that took place in Apr. 2004

Shown difference in number of events & RMS for the two data sets of 2003 and 2004*

Shown Moller asymmetry for the two data sets of 2003 and 2004*

Grand Moller asymmetryper slug & per run.

Monopole Asymmetry

Grand Asymmetry = 17.7 +/- 14.9 ppb Total Correction = 2.9 +/- 38.4 ppb Chi^2= 41/36

Rings comparisons

Detector Chi^2/ndf

IN 43/36

MID 40/36

OUT 86/36

Energy & HWP comparisons

Timeslot comparisons

Energy & HWP comparisons for each ring

Azimuthal Dependence in Moller Detector

Shown is the azimuthal asymmetry per channel for the Moller detector rings using the longitudinal 48GeV & 45GeV data in Run III

INdipole

MIDdipole

OUTdipole

Detector Monopole (ppb) Xdipole (ppb) Chi^2/ndf Ydipole (ppb) Chi^2/ndf

IN 15.8 +/- 24.5 -58.9 +/- 30.9 45/36 -7.9 +/- 28.6 80/36

MID 26.7 +/- 19.4 -48.2 +/- 25.4 34/36 30.6 +/- 22.8 97/36

OUT 4.8 +/- 26.9 -112 +/-38.8 142/36 110 +/- 35.5 211/36

Azimuthal asymmetries per ring

Beam Corrections

Parameter Beam Asymmetry Slopes Correction (ppb)

Q 73.7 +/- 287 ppb 0.002 ppb/ppb -0.6 +/- 2.0

E -2.3 +/- 1.9 KeV -17.58 ppb/KeV 24.2 +/- 38.2

X -9.3 +/- 5.9 nm -0.18 ppb/nm -10.5 +/- 2.5

Y 12.1 +/- 5.9 nm -0.58 ppb/nm -20.3 +/- 5.4

dX -0.0 +/- 0.2 nard 16.38 ppb/nrad 6.8 +/- 4.8

dY 0.2 +/- 0.1 nrad 18.45 ppb/nrad 3.2 +/- 4.3

Total - - 2.9 +/- 38.4

Beam corrections per slug

Total beam asymmetries & slopes & correctins

Beam slopes per slug

Beam asymmetries per slug

Beam corrections per ring

Q

E

X

Y

dX

dY

Detector Asymmetry (ppb) Total Correction (ppb)

Moller monopole 17.7 +/- 14.9 2.9 +/- 38.4

In monopole 15.8 +/- 24.5 51.0 +/- 51.0

Mid monopole 26.7 +/- 19.4 49.6 +/- 64.

Out monopole 4.8 +/- 26.9 -159.0 +/- 42.3

Monopole & Dipole corrections per ring

In dipole X -58.9 +/- 30.9 57.6 +/- 28.0

Mid dipole X -48.2 +/- 25.4 244.9 +/- 87.4

Out dipole X -111.8 +/- 38.8 154.9 +/- 150.4

In dipole Y -7.9 +/- 28.6 -52.3 +/-17.9

Mid dipole Y 30.6 +/- 22.8 133.2 +/- 94.

Out dipole Y 110.1 +/- 35.5 405.1 +/- 161.6

Parameters Corr. (ppb) Suppression Error (ppb)

Q -0.6 - 0.0

E 24.2 2.58% 0.63

X -10.5 2.04% 0.22

Y -20.3 3.57% 0.73

dX 6.8 8.44% 0.58

dY 3.2 4.69% 0.15

TOTAL 2.9 - 1.15

First-Order Systematics

The total error is the quadratic sum of all above errors

Error = Corr. * Suppression

How did we get this ?

How did we get 2.58 % suppression factor on energy E ?

1- We first calculate the following ratio per slug for E:

2- Plot the above value verses slug number

3- Take the error on the above average from the plot the average. This is the suppression factor on E.

4- Similarly we calculated the other suppression factors.

0,1 refer to the two timeslots

Syst. Error (ppb)

0.0

0.63

0.22

0.73

0.58

0.15

1.15

Jitter Error (ppb)

2.0

38.2

2.5

5.4

4.8

4.3

38.4

Parameters

Q

E

X

Y

dX

dY

TOTAL

Timeslotanalysis

The timeslot analysis is so powerful!

The biggest suppression occurs for Energy

Parameter Regression Slope Suppression Error (ppb)

Energy -17.58 ppm/KeV 4.4% -0.77

Angle X -16.38 ppm/urad 36.0% -0.12

Angle Y 18.45 ppm/urad 21.5% 0.08

Target X -0.018 ppm/um 16.2% -0.02

Target Y -0.58 ppm/um 6.8% -0.04

TOTAL - - -0.87

Beam False Asymmetries

Error = Slope. * Suppression

The total error is the direct sum of all above errors

How did we get this ?

1- We first calculate the following quantity for angle X:

2- Take the error on the above value. This is the suppression factor on angle X. 3- Similarly we calculated the other suppression factors.

How did we get 36.0 % suppression factor on angle X ?

C1, C2 refer to the calibration constantsX_agr is the BPM agreement on angle X.

Systematic error on beam false asymmetry is less than 1 ppb.

Comparing Regression with Dithering

Difference between regression and dithering is ~1 ppb.

Regression Dithering

Grand Asymmetry (ppb) 15.8+/-15.1 16.8 +/- 15.7

Total Correction (ppb) -1.3+/- 38.7 -2.3 +/- 39.0

Parameter Beam Asymmetry Reg. Correction (ppb) Dit. Correction (ppb)

Q 60.5 +/- 290 ppb -0.5 +/- 2.0 -3.2 +/- 3.5

E -1.7 +/- 1.9 KeV 20.5 +/- 38.6 25.4 +/- 39.4

X -8.2 +/- 5.9 nm -10.3 +/- 2.5 -5.3 +/- 2.7

Y 12.1 +/- 6.0 nm -20.5 +/- 5.4 -25.1 +/- 6.6

dX -0.0 +/- 0.2 nrad 6.7 +/- 4.8 1.5 +/- 6.0

dY 0.2 +/- 0.1 nrad 2.8 +/- 4.3 4.3 +/- 5.3

Total - -1.3 +/- 38.7 -2.3 +/- 39

Moller grand asymmetries for dithering and regression

Regression & Dithering IN

Regression & Dithering MID

Regression & Dithering OUT

Total of 154.51 MP after cuts.

Considering the regression set, the blinded Moller asymmetry is 17.7 +/- 14.9 ppb with total correction 2.9 +/- 38.4 ppb.

Considering the dithering & regression set, the blinded Moller asymmetry is 16.8 +/- 15.7 ppb and 15.8 +/- 15.1 ppb respectively with a difference ~1 ppb.

The First-Order Beam Systematic error is: 1.15 ppb for regression.

Less than 1 ppb systematic error due to false beam asymmetry.

Conclusion