Is The Different Monochromatic $. Gamma $ Selection Criteria?
\caption[Different monochromatic $\gamma$ selection criteria is explained in the first column]
{
Different monochromatic $\gamma$ selection criteria are given in the first column. The resulting efficiencies using different monochromatic cuts are given in the second column.
The number of the reconstructed $\omega\to\pi^0\gamma$ decays ($N_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}^{rec}$) for different monochromatic cuts are presented in the third column. The measured branching ratio
$BR^{measured}_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}$ for each monochromatic cut is written in the fourth column. The error ($\sigma^{av}_{rms}$ : root mean square deviation from the final value $X(f)$) originates due to the systematic effect of monochromatic $\gamma$ selection criteria is given …show more content…
The black hyperbolas ($E=A/\protect\angle^{LAB}\left(\gamma1,\gamma2\right)$) plotted on this histogram represent different neutral split off cuts used for the systematic studies.
The parameter $A$ for each hyperbola is written in the legend of the histogram.
}
\label{Fspltsys}
\end{figure}
%
The hyperbolas shown in the split-off plot (Fig.~\ref{Fspltsys}) represent the different neutral split-off cuts used for the systematic studies. The definition of hyperbolas is given in Equation~\ref{sdspltsyshyp}.
%
\begin{equation}
\label{sdspltsyshyp}
E > \frac{A}{\angle^{LAB}(\gamma1,\gamma2)}
\end{equation}
% where the constant parameter $A$ is changed to vary the cuts. The hyperbolas shown in histogram have parameter $A=0.25$ and then from $0.5$ to $3.0$ in th step of $0.5$. The parameter $A$ is restricted up to 3 because beyond $A=3$ there are too many events from the signal
($\omega\to\pi^0\gamma$) are thrown away as split-offs. It should be noted here that …show more content…
The values for the final measurement are highlighted as blue text. $N$ in Equation~\ref{sdfitsys} is 6 for this case. The red text in Table~\ref{Tspltsyseff} are the estimated errors for each variable for two energies as well as for the combined data set.
The exclusive efficiency do not change with different cuts. Because of which it is not expected to see a considerable systematic effect in the number of
$\omega\to\pi^0\gamma$ decays $N_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}^{rec}$ and hence in the branching ratio $BR^{measured}_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}$. Table~\ref{Tspltsyseff} show that except for slight fluctuations no effect is observed because of the neutral split-off cut.
This is quantitatively seen in the calculated systematic uncertainties which is hardly 1$\%$ for 1.45~GeV, $\approx$0.50$\%$ for 1.5~GeV and for entire data set. Despite of the fact that neutral split-off cut has small contribution to the systematic uncertainty, the effect due to the fitting procedure is still visible here. As 1.45~GeV data set show relatively larger systematic uncertainty. This show the dependency of neutral split-off cut on the effect due to the fitting procedure.
{
Different monochromatic $\gamma$ selection criteria are given in the first column. The resulting efficiencies using different monochromatic cuts are given in the second column.
The number of the reconstructed $\omega\to\pi^0\gamma$ decays ($N_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}^{rec}$) for different monochromatic cuts are presented in the third column. The measured branching ratio
$BR^{measured}_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}$ for each monochromatic cut is written in the fourth column. The error ($\sigma^{av}_{rms}$ : root mean square deviation from the final value $X(f)$) originates due to the systematic effect of monochromatic $\gamma$ selection criteria is given …show more content…
The black hyperbolas ($E=A/\protect\angle^{LAB}\left(\gamma1,\gamma2\right)$) plotted on this histogram represent different neutral split off cuts used for the systematic studies.
The parameter $A$ for each hyperbola is written in the legend of the histogram.
}
\label{Fspltsys}
\end{figure}
%
The hyperbolas shown in the split-off plot (Fig.~\ref{Fspltsys}) represent the different neutral split-off cuts used for the systematic studies. The definition of hyperbolas is given in Equation~\ref{sdspltsyshyp}.
%
\begin{equation}
\label{sdspltsyshyp}
E > \frac{A}{\angle^{LAB}(\gamma1,\gamma2)}
\end{equation}
% where the constant parameter $A$ is changed to vary the cuts. The hyperbolas shown in histogram have parameter $A=0.25$ and then from $0.5$ to $3.0$ in th step of $0.5$. The parameter $A$ is restricted up to 3 because beyond $A=3$ there are too many events from the signal
($\omega\to\pi^0\gamma$) are thrown away as split-offs. It should be noted here that …show more content…
The values for the final measurement are highlighted as blue text. $N$ in Equation~\ref{sdfitsys} is 6 for this case. The red text in Table~\ref{Tspltsyseff} are the estimated errors for each variable for two energies as well as for the combined data set.
The exclusive efficiency do not change with different cuts. Because of which it is not expected to see a considerable systematic effect in the number of
$\omega\to\pi^0\gamma$ decays $N_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}^{rec}$ and hence in the branching ratio $BR^{measured}_{\omega\to\pi^0\gamma}$. Table~\ref{Tspltsyseff} show that except for slight fluctuations no effect is observed because of the neutral split-off cut.
This is quantitatively seen in the calculated systematic uncertainties which is hardly 1$\%$ for 1.45~GeV, $\approx$0.50$\%$ for 1.5~GeV and for entire data set. Despite of the fact that neutral split-off cut has small contribution to the systematic uncertainty, the effect due to the fitting procedure is still visible here. As 1.45~GeV data set show relatively larger systematic uncertainty. This show the dependency of neutral split-off cut on the effect due to the fitting procedure.