04/06/07 I.Larin pi0 systematic error 1

0 error budget

Completed items (review)

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

Items to be completed

2

Completed items

Target (thickness and density) ……... ………. 0.1% Target material (impurity) …………... ………. -0.4% Photon beam flux ……………………. .……… 1.1% Trigger efficiency ……………………... ………. +0.1% ADC channels status during run time ………. negligible

Photon beam energy uncertainty ……..... 0.3% Photon beam flux distribution within

E-counters ……………………... ….…… 0.1% 0 branching ratio …………………….. ………. negligible

3

Completed items

Energy cut for single ……………….. ………. 0.2% Energy cut for 0 ……………………... ………. negligible

0 production angle resolution uncertainty …. 0.25% CIparameter uncertainty …………….. ………. 1.0%

4

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

MC eff. simulations (statistical) accuracy…… . 0.3%

Selection of “best in time” beam candidates.. . 0.3%

This selection efficiency was estimated by: a) number of elastic 0s rejected by this selection;syst. error is defined by how well this value can be extracted from the data b) comparing lifetime fit results for all and “best in time” beam candidates (for double check)

Both methods give efficiency of this selection 99.3% for all runs used in this analysis together (100,130 and 110 nA)

5

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

Hycal z uncertainty ……………................ 0.4%

Used Hycal z-uncertainty value is 1.5cm.Difference in Hycal acceptance was obtained for “standard”and shifted Hycal z in simulations.

6

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

Beam position uncertainty ………................ negligible

Probe value of 5 mm for Hycal VS beam alignment stability was taken.

dN/d distortion by 5mm shift affects lifetime fit result -4.7%

Efficiency reduction due to 5mm shift is about -1.4%(from simulations)

For estimated beam pos. uncertainty of 0.2mm both factors affect lifetime fit negligible

7

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

Beam direction uncertainty ………............... +0.14%

Probe value of 0.5 mrad for Hycal VS beam slope stability was taken.

dN/d distortion by 0.5mrad slope affects lifetime fit result -2.5%

Efficiency reduction due to 0.5mrad beam slope (with beam and Hycal intersection point fixed in simulations) is -0.1%

For estimated beam slope. uncertainty of 0.12mrad both factors affect lifetime fit -0.14%

8

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

Beam divergence uncertainty ………............ 0.3%

Beam divergence variations from superharp analysis were used to estimate this error budget item

Lifetime fit result show 0.3% variation for different beam divergence used in convolution with Hycal angular resolution

Efficiency variations for different beam divergences look negligible in simulations

9

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

Timing cut (tdiff) ………............ 1.0%U

sed

cu

t va

lue

Uncertainty value includes lifetime fit variations with 0…+1ns tdiff cut variation and effects of possible timing misalignment for separate T-counterswithin 0.5ns window

10

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

int parameter uncertainty ………............ 0.5%

For used incoherent model int value was calculated = 0.88 rad.Fit results for int parameter kept free and for int parameter fixed to predicted value were compared for pass1 and pass2a and their difference was used as a measure of this uncertainty.

11

Updated and new items (not reported yet)

Hycal response function ………............ 1.0%

Snake scan with beam centered on W2086:100pA run; 30pA run; MC “run”

X range 100pA 30pA MC

Low (~0) ? ? ?

0.2 - 0.5 0.26 0.46 0.06

0.5 - 0.8 0.35 0.50 0.22

0.8 -0.9 0.65 0.80 0.59

0.9 - 0.95 2.5 2.7 3.2

0.95 - 1.0 52.3 54.8 55.2

12

Updated and new items (not reported yet)Other stability checks (which don’t go to error budget):

pass1 (8.06eV) VS pass2a (8.02eV)

VS raw data (8.02eV) …….......... 0.4% use of bit-9 VS bit-2 in tdif (aligned separately):

bit-9 gives 0.5% less value for pass-1

and 0.3% less value for pass-2a ……………. -0.4%

0 mass plot (constrained) fit :

varying number of bins …. 0.9% (within stat. error)

100nA runs VS all runs and

130nA and 110 nA runs VS all runs .…1.5%

(within stat. error)

13

Items to be completed

Coherent formfactor dependence on photon beam energy

Incoherent shape check with all HycalEffect of background on extracted

number of elastic 0

14

Items to be completed Background separation: (currently used value) ….1.0%

Current total syst. error 2.5%

Value was estimated as a difference in number of elastic 0s forseparate bins summed and for mass plot for all s together.Also a difference in number of 0s with background fit variations within their errors was estimated.

More background simulations have to be performed for:

) 2 non-resonant background (may hide wider part of the signal and decrease efficiency)

) decay (may or may not (?) produce artificial structure in 0 elasticity distribution around 1 and “mimic” some extra 0)

) Accidentals by “tagged but missed” and untagged photons(“dips” in 0 elasticity distribution may hide part of signal)