[Olympus] PRC, OLYMPUS web site, Physics Today, and collaboration meeting
Belostotski, Stanislav
stanislav.belostotski at desy.de
Sat Mar 25 05:32:39 EDT 2017
Hello,
Thank you very much for detailed clarifications.
Best regards stanB
On 24.03.2017 17:44, Brian S. Henderson wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I will briefly comment on the 12 degree systematic determination,
> although I'll once again point you towards our theses for complete
> details on various aspects of the analyses. In particular, Section 5.2
> of my thesis covers the 12 degree analysis including a rather long
> discussion of systematic uncertainties in Section 5.2.8. The dominant
> contributions to the 12 degree species-relative measurement systematic
> uncertainty were as follows:
>
> 1. ToF trigger efficiency: 0.19%
> 2. Magnetic field: 0.15%
> 3. Knowledge of the elastic form factors: 0.14%
> 4. Fiducial cuts: 0.12%
> 5. Lepton tracking efficiency: 0.18%
> 6. Elastic selection: 0.27%
>
> These effects account for ~97% of the total uncertainty quoted for the
> 12 degree point. The first three are related to the fact that we ran in
> only one field configuration. For #1, the electrons and positrons
> tracked in the 12 degree arm sampled different distributions of ToF bars
> for the associated proton trigger (shown in Figure 5-19 of my thesis),
> including substantially different sampling of the rearmost ToF bars that
> had leading-edge discriminators and needed to be treated differently in
> the simulation than the rest of the bars (see Section 4.3.4 of Becky's
> thesis. The magnetic field uncertainty arises from the fact that the 12
> degree arms were mounted in the region of the field with the strongest
> field gradients (near the coil pinch) where our uncertainty in the field
> measurements and model were largest. Due to the small acceptance of the
> telescopes and the strong slope in the cross section in this region,
> these field uncertainties can create a clearly visible effect (Figures
> 5-23 and 5-24 of my thesis). The form factor systematic could, in
> principle, be reduced by future measurements, but is fundamentally
> limited by the fact that the telescopes sampled different average Q^2
> for each species in the same field configuration. Attempts were made to
> cross-check these systematics by using the limited amount of negative
> field data, however, there were insufficient negative field data in the
> fall run in which running conditions were at all similar to main
> production running (i.e., most negative field runs had material on the
> target windows, rolled-out detections, etc.) and the February running
> conditions were sufficiently different from the Fall run (in particular
> with regard to tracking the protons) to make any clear analysis
> effectively impossible. Section 5.2.1 of my thesis discusses the
> limitations of a single-arm measurement (i.e., requiring no information
> from a proton track (merely the trigger), which results in ~1%-level
> uncertainties).
>
> The latter three effects are a result of the fact that the MWPCs were
> not initially designed to be the main (and, in fact, only) tracking
> elements of the 12 degree telescopes. Although they performed extremely
> admirably and "saved-the-day" for the 12 degree measurements, ultimately
> the limitation to three tracking planes and ~1-mm hit position
> resolution fundamentally limited the reconstruction. As noted, Section
> 5.2.8 covers how these various effects contributed to the systematics
> and how they were tested by varying various elements of the analysis.
> Section 5.2.2 of my thesis explains why the GEMs needed to be excluded
> from the 12 degree measurement.
>
> Many of these effects are estimated very conservatively, and it is
> likely true that they are not completely orthogonal. In particular, I
> suspect that the fiducial cuts and magnetic field uncertainties are
> highly-correlated since the field is related to the widths of the vertex
> distributions that go into the fiducial cuts. Some of this is
> symptomatic of the fact that typically the more systematic uncertainties
> you investigate, the larger your uncertainty estimate becomes. If Axel
> or Jan would like to comment on some of the forward main spectrometer
> point uncertainties, they might be able to illuminate a bit more, but in
> general the wider acceptance of the drift chambers washes-out some of
> these effects.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Brian
>
> On 03/24/2017 08:22 AM, Belostotski, Stanislav wrote:
>> Dear Douglas,
>> Let me first to congratulate you with so successful presentation of the
>> OLYMPUS results at DESY PRC.
>> Given the TPE is certainly may affect the precise measurements at
>> small Q**2 may I ask you which question on r_p (proton radius) is in
>> the comment section, as mentioned in your mail?
>> My second issue is related to the published data.I mean the 12 deg.
>> telescope point.
>> Why is the systematic error bar so large in this point? Seems to be
>> larger than those in other (BLAST spectrometer) points.
>> With best regards StanB
>>
>>
>> On 23.03.2017 19:28, Douglas K Hasell wrote:
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>> This past Tuesday the DESY PRC meeting was held. I gave the talk in the open session that I think was well received. My slides are available on the OLYMPUS Wiki.
>>>
>>> In the closed session Uwe and I were present. Elke Aschenauer was also present and gave a brief summary of the OLYMPUS experiment and results. She started from the proposal and listed the progress as well as the problems along the way. I think her assessment was fair and very supportive. She congratulated us on several innovative solutions to the problems that arose and also for the quality of the final result that she considered as a definitive measurement in this momentum transfer region in spite of the small effect. She pointed out that theory predictions at the time of the proposal lead us to expect a larger effect that unfortunately was not seen. She also pointed to the tight time constraints that we had to deal with. She made recommendations to DESY about future projects like this to encourage broader collaboration and readiness reviews.
>>>
>>> In response Uwe and I thanked her and the PRC for their support and agreed with most of her statements. I then showed our plans for the future papers and presentations.
>>>
>>> Offline many people from the PRC and others from DESY congratulated us on the result and commiserated with us about the small effect.
>>>
>>> Leslie Rosenberg pointed out that the OLYMPUS web site is woefully out of date. Typically we have been using the Wiki to post results. However, the Wiki is private so the public face of OLYMPUS is hasn’t been updated since around 2012. This is my fault since it is hosted at MIT and I am the main person responsible for these web pages.
>>>
>>> Therefore, if there are no objections, I will update several things on the web site, copy our public presentations and publications, including theses, from the Wiki to the web page and remove or make private anything that needs to remain OLYMPUS only.
>>>
>>> FYI the Physics Today web site has a brief article on OLYMPUS on their web site:
>>>
>>> http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.7358/full/
>>>
>>> Perhaps Jan would like to respond to the proton radius question in the comment section?
>>>
>>> I spoke to Dr. Steven Blau, one of the Physics Today editors, last week and will have a telephone conversation with him this afternoon about a longer article scheduled to appear in Physics Today in May. I have put together a few pictures that might be used in the May article. If anyone has good photos of their particular detector that might be included please send them to me.
>>>
>>> Finally, the next collaboration meeting will be on Monday, April 10, at 10:00 EST (16:00 CET).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Douglas
>>>
>>> 26-415 M.I.T. Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
>>> 77 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
>>> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA E-mail: hasell at mit.edu
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>> Name: smime.p7s
>>> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
>>> Size: 1843 bytes
>>> Desc: not available
>>> Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20170323/b83e3bfa/attachment.bin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Olympus mailing list
>>> Olympus at mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Olympus mailing list
>> Olympus at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20170324/9080f596/attachment.html
> _______________________________________________
> Olympus mailing list
> Olympus at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>
More information about the Olympus
mailing list