Run III Final Moller Results E 158 Collaboration

Run III Final Moller Results E 158 Collaboration Meeting JLab June, 2004 Waled Emam Syracuse 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 Ge. V 22 Slugs at 48 Ge. V - Number of runs is 1010. - Number of Events is 154. 5 MP - For the resluts shown in this talk : Moller. Estat 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 significant changes in the Moller asymmetry value.

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

Monopole Asymmetry Grand Moller asymmetry per slug & per run. 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 48 Ge. V & 45 Ge. V data in Run III

IN dipole

MID dipole

OUT dipole

Azimuthal asymmetries per ring 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

Beam Corrections Beam corrections per slug Total beam asymmetries & slopes & correctins Parameter Beam Asymmetry Slopes Correction (ppb) Q 73. 7 +/- 287 ppb 0. 002 ppb/ppb -0. 6 +/- 2. 0 E -2. 3 +/- 1. 9 Ke. V -17. 58 ppb/Ke. V 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 d. X -0. 0 +/- 0. 2 nard 16. 38 ppb/nrad 6. 8 +/- 4. 8 d. Y 0. 2 +/- 0. 1 nrad 18. 45 ppb/nrad 3. 2 +/- 4. 3 - - 2. 9 +/- 38. 4 Total

Beam slopes per slug Beam asymmetries per slug

Beam corrections per ring Q X d. X E Y d. Y

Monopole & Dipole corrections per ring 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 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

First-Order Systematics Error = Corr. * Suppression 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 d. X 6. 8 8. 44% 0. 58 d. Y 3. 2 4. 69% 0. 15 TOTAL 2. 9 - 1. 15 The total error is the quadratic sum of all above errors 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: 0, 1 refer to the two timeslots 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.

The timeslot analysis is so powerful! Parameters Jitter Error (ppb) Syst. Error (ppb) Q 2. 0 0. 0 E 38. 2 X 2. 5 Y 5. 4 0. 73 d. X 4. 8 0. 58 d. Y 4. 3 0. 15 38. 4 1. 15 TOTAL Timeslot analysis The biggest suppression occurs for Energy 0. 63 0. 22

Beam False Asymmetries Error = Slope. * Suppression Parameter Regression Slope Suppression Error (ppb) Energy -17. 58 ppm/Ke. V 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 The total error is the direct sum of all above errors How did we get this ?

How did we get 36. 0 % suppression factor on angle X ? 1 - We first calculate the following quantity for angle X: C 1, C 2 refer to the calibration constants X_agr is the BPM agreement on 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. Systematic error on beam false asymmetry is less than 1 ppb.

Comparing Regression with Dithering Regression Dithering Grand Asymmetry (ppb) 15. 8+/-15. 1 16. 8 +/- 15. 7 Total Correction (ppb) -1. 3+/- 38. 7 -2. 3 +/- 39. 0 Difference between regression and dithering is ~1 ppb. 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 Ke. V 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 d. X -0. 0 +/- 0. 2 nrad 6. 7 +/- 4. 8 1. 5 +/- 6. 0 d. Y 0. 2 +/- 0. 1 nrad 2. 8 +/- 4. 3 +/- 5. 3 -1. 3 +/- 38. 7 -2. 3 +/- 39 Total -

Moller grand asymmetries for dithering and regression

Regression & Dithering IN

Regression & Dithering MID

Regression & Dithering OUT

Conclusion 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.