Final analysis

Total Systematics

	Abs Err [ppm]	Rel Err
Pol.	0.007	1.1%
Det. Lin.	0.007	1.1%
BCM Lin.	0.007	1.1%
Rescat.	0.000	0.0%
Trans. Pol.	0.001	0.2%
Q2	0.003	0.5%
Targ Thick	0.001	0.2%
A_12C	0.002	0.4%
Inelas.	0.000	0.0%
Beam	0.007	1.2%
TOTAL	0.014	2.3%

Overall Sign

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2601

  Positive Moller asymmetry corresponds to positive spin (i.e. along momentum)
  when IHWP is OUT and helicity bit is TRUE.

When the Wien is right (solenoid = 90 degrees) the precession is ~360 degrees. Wien right, HWP out gives positive Moller asymmetry and positive reported polarization. From the large asymmetry runs, there has historically been an overall sign difference between the Moller DAQ and and the HAPPEX DAQ (haven't confirmed this for PREX).

So to get a L-R asymmetry,

• Multiply by -1 when HWP is IN
• Multiply by -1 when Wien is LEFT, solenoid = -90 degrees

From this we get a positive R-L sign for lead, which is predicted.

<math>Q^2</math>

From Kiad

• http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2595

Left average	<math>Q^{2} = 0.009330</math> GeV<math>{}^{2}</math>
Right average	<math>Q^{2} = 0.008751</math> GeV<math>{}^{2}</math>

Averaging the two weighting <math>N/\sigma^2</math>, over three data sets of the left and right arms are up with the direct average, left arm up, and right arm up, I get

Average: <math>Q^{2} = 0.009066</math> GeV<math>{}^{2}</math>

The overall uncertainty is 1%

• http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2607

I propagate <math>Q^2</math> uncertainty to <math>A_{Pb}</math> uncertainty through the derivative of this fit:

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2598

Which gives me 0.5%

Polarimetry

Compton

88.20 +/- 0.12 (stat) +/- 1.04 (sys) %

Moller

90.32 +/- 0.07 (stat) +/- 1.12 (sys) %

Taking a weighted average between the two

89.18 +/- 1.04%

Compton

Mindy's HAPLOG post:

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2582

Mindy's result: 87.41 +/- 0.12 (stat)%

chi^2/NDoF = 1.09 for 13 points over the experiment

Compton slug-by-slug:

• http://www.jlab.org/~riordan/20110412/Compton_slugBP_PREx-I_Apr_2011.gif

Kent's post on PMT gain correction: http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2599

This increases the polarization by 0.9% +/- 0.9%

Final result:

88.20 +/- 0.12 (stat) +/- 1.04 (sys) %

Systematic Error

	Rel Uncer. (%)
Laser Pol.	0.7	http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2530
Gain shift	0.9	analysis from Kent, see above
Collimator Pos.	0.02	http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2568
Nonlinearity	0.3	http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2569
TOTAL	1.18

Systematic Error Notes

• From Megan over gain shift (obsolete):

I don't think I'm going to be able to get a number for the gain shift
during PREX, although it should scale linearly with signal-background
size. Using the 1% gain shift we saw during HAPPEX (signal+bkg to
background = 122e6 to 53e6), that would give us a 0.8% gain shift for
PREX (signal+bkg to background = 48e6 to 30e6 at 1kHz * 3.3 to convert
to 30Hz). This would give us a change in the final polarization number
of 1.3%, if it's folded into the background subtraction ( which comes
from comparing a background subtraction of
(48e6-30e6*(1.008))/(48e6-30e6) ). So I'd say the possible gain shift
gives you a 1.3% systematic error.

• From Megan over radiative correction:

I just ran through the PREX data to add in a radiative correction, and I
get that this increases the analyzing power by 0.3% (from 0.01828903 to
0.01834393). This is consistent with what I've seen, so I think it's
safe to add that in there.

There is an increase in analyzing power of 0.3%, which corresponds to a decrease in beam polarization by 0.3%. Therefore, the final analyzing power should multiply by (1+0.003) due to A_real = A_exp * (1+0.3%)

w/o the radiative correction:

analyzing power = 0.01824526 +- 0.00002583 (sta.)

w/ the radiative correction:

analyzing power = 0.018299996 +- 0.00002583 (sta.)

Moller

http://www.jlab.org/~moller/e02-006.html

Just taking the last 4 runs, which are relevant for production data taking:

Final result weighted average: 90.32 +/- 0.07 (stat) +/- 1.12 (sys) %

Systematic Error

Sasha's report at the Jan 2011 collaboration meeting

• http://www.jlab.org/~moller/docs/PREX_Col_01_29_2011.pdf

	Uncer. (%)
Fe Pol.	0.25
Targ Discrep.	0.5
Targ Saturation	0.3
Analyzing power	0.3
Levchuk	0.5
Targ temp	0.02
Dead time	0.3
Background	0.3
Others	0.5
Current diff	0.3
TOTAL	1.12

Finite Acceptance

(Being redone)

The radiative effects/multiple scattering/etc. leads to an effective drop from the measured <math>Q^2</math> by 0.8%

• http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2640

From HAMC, the asymmetry as a function of <math>Q^{2}</math> can be well represented by a third order polynomial:

<math> A = -0.0303 + 134.6Q^{2} - 6142Q^{4} + 29700Q^{6} </math>

The fractional difference between <math>A_{obs}</math> and <math>A_{vertex}</math> is 0.31%.

Background

Inelastic

See Kiad's presentation

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2583

The acceptance for the first excited state of Pb is <0.1%. It's expected to have an asymmetry ~1.3 of the elastic asymmetry so it is totally negligable.

The first excited state of carbon is outside our acceptance and does not contribute

Carbon

Carbon was done by Kiad

• http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2602
• http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2621

An interpolation was done between runs using integrated charge. The starting target thicknesses were from:

http://hallaweb.jlab.org/parity/prex/runinfo/PREX_Target_Info.doc

The lead and carbon cross sections vs. <math>Q^2</math> are given by:

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2618

The cross section ratio between carbon and lead was taken from an cross section parameterization and found to be about 0.0186. The carbon qsq was 8.3% higher than lead.

The correction is applied by:

<math> A_{Pb} = \frac{A_{meas}}{P} + D\left(\frac{A_{meas}}{P} - A_{C}\right) </math>

where

<math> D = \frac{N_{C}}{N_{Pb}} = \frac{208}{12} \frac{t_{C}}{t_{Pb}} \frac{ \sigma_C}{\sigma_{Pb}} </math>

and

<math> A_{C} = 4\frac{G_F Q^2 \sin^2\theta_W}{4\pi\alpha\sqrt{2}} </math>

The average value for <math>A_C</math> is 816 ppb (with the higher effective <math>Q^2</math>. The average for <math>D</math> is 0.066.

I assigned a 10% uncertainty to <math>D</math> for the target thickness and a 5% uncertainty to <math>A_C</math>. For a 0.6 ppm measurement, this corresponds to contributions of 0.2% and 0.4% uncertainty, respectively.

Rescattering

Results show that this correction is < 0.1%.

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2620

Relative asymmetry in the tail and the detector asymmetry vs. dp from HAMC:

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2598

Nonlinearity

Analysis from Seamus:

• http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2597

This analysis does not include considerations for BCM non-linearity and does not account for the changes that we see in pedestals.

From Kent, the BCM nonlinearity contribution in the past has been about 1%. Because the slopes are approximately 1% (and do tend to cancel over the course of the experiment), the overall detector contribution to the asymmetry is likely less than 1%. So assigning a BCM systematic of 1% of AQ and 1% detector systematic would be reasonable.

AQ was approximately 96ppb.

Transverse Asymmetry

The transverse polarization of the beam was about 1 degree:

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2596

Calculations from Bob: http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2594

Comments from Kent: http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/2606

Pb Transverse asymmetries from Ahmed (needs to go in the HAPLOG): On CUE: /home/riordan/Ahmed_TransLeadCarbon-1.pdf

Pb Transverse asymmetry on Pb from Jon is ~200ppb +/- 200ppb

From Kent's arguments delta = 0.2 ppm * sin(3 deg) * 0.1 = 1.0 ppb (0.2% for 0.5ppm measurement)