X. Qian
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by X. Qian.
Physical Review Letters | 2006
A. Acha; K. A. Aniol; D.S. Armstrong; J. Arrington; T. Averett; S. L. Bailey; J. Barber; A. Beck; H. Benaoum; J. Benesch; P. Y. Bertin; P. Bosted; F. Butaru; E. Burtin; G. D. Cates; Y. C. Chao; J. P. Chen; E. Chudakov; E. Cisbani; B. Craver; F. Cusanno; R. De Leo; P. Decowski; A. Deur; R. J. Feuerbach; J. M. Finn; S. Frullani; S. A. Fuchs; K. Fuoti; R. Gilman
We report new measurements of the parity-violating asymmetry A_PV in elastic scattering of 3 GeV electrons off hydrogen and 4He targets with~6.0 degrees. The 4He result is A_PV = (+6.40 +/- 0.23 (stat) +/- 0.12 (syst)) x10^-6. The hydrogen result is A_PV = (-1.58 +/- 0.12 (stat) +/- 0.04 (syst)) x10^-6. These results significantly improve constraints on the electric and magnetic strange form factors G_E^s and G_M^s. We extract G_E^s = 0.002 +/- 0.014 +/- 0.007 at= 0.077 GeV^2, and G_E^s + 0.09 G_M^s = 0.007 +/- 0.011 +/- 0.006 at= 0.109 GeV^2, providing new limits on the role of strange quarks in the nucleon charge and magnetization distributions.
Physical Review D | 2013
X. Qian; D.A. Dwyer; R. D. McKeown; P. Vogel; Wen-Wen Wang; C. Zhang
Determination of the neutrino mass hierarchy using a reactor neutrino experiment at ∼60 km is analyzed. Such a measurement is challenging due to the finite detector resolution, the absolute energy scale calibration, and the degeneracies caused by current experimental uncertainty of |Δm_(32)^2|. The standard χ^2 method is compared with a proposed Fourier transformation method. In addition, we show that for such a measurement to succeed, one must understand the nonlinearity of the detector energy scale at the level of a few tenths of percent.
Physical Review Letters | 2009
J. Seely; A. Daniel; D. Gaskell; J. Arrington; N. Fomin; P. Solvignon; R. Asaturyan; F. Benmokhtar; W. Boeglin; B. Boillat; P. Bosted; A. Bruell; M. H. S. Bukhari; M. E. Christy; B. Clasie; Simon Henry Connell; M. M. Dalton; D. Day; J. Dunne; D. Dutta; L. El Fassi; R. Ent; H. Fenker; B. W. Filippone; H. Gao; C. Hill; R. J. Holt; T. Horn; Ed V. Hungerford; M. K. Jones
J. Seely, A. Daniel, D. Gaskell, J. Arrington, ∗ N. Fomin, P. Solvignon, R. Asaturyan, † F. Benmokhtar, W. Boeglin, B. Boillat, P. Bosted, A. Bruell, M.H.S. Bukhari, M.E. Christy, B. Clasie, S. Connell, ‡ M.M. Dalton, D. Day, J. Dunne, D. Dutta, 12 L. El Fassi, R. Ent, H. Fenker, B.W. Filippone, H. Gao, 12 C. Hill, R.J. Holt, T. Horn, 3 E. Hungerford, M.K. Jones, J. Jourdan, N. Kalantarians, C.E. Keppel, D. Kiselev, M. Kotulla, C. Lee, A.F. Lung, S. Malace, D.G. Meekins, T. Mertens, H. Mkrtchyan, T. Navasardyan, G. Niculescu, I. Niculescu, H. Nomura, Y. Okayasu, A.K. Opper, C. Perdrisat, D.H. Potterveld, V. Punjabi, X. Qian, P.E. Reimer, J. Roche, V.M. Rodriguez, O. Rondon, E. Schulte, E. Segbefia, K. Slifer, G.R. Smith, V. Tadevosyan, S. Tajima, L. Tang, G. Testa, R. Trojer, V. Tvaskis, W.F. Vulcan, F.R. Wesselmann, S.A. Wood, J. Wright, L. Yuan, and X. Zheng Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory, Newport News, VA, USA Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Yerevan Physics Institute, Armenia University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA Basel University, Basel, Switzerland Hampton University, Hampton, VA, USA Mississippi State University, Jackson, MS, USA Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Kellogg Radiation Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA, USA (Dated: October 27, 2009)
Physical Review Letters | 2012
N. Fomin; J. Arrington; R. Asaturyan; F. Benmokhtar; W. Boeglin; P. Bosted; A. Bruell; M. H. S. Bukhari; M. E. Christy; E. Chudakov; B. Clasie; Simon Henry Connell; M. M. Dalton; A. Daniel; D. Day; D. Dutta; R. Ent; L. El Fassi; H. Fenker; B. W. Filippone; K. Garrow; D. Gaskell; C. Hill; R. J. Holt; T. Horn; M. K. Jones; J. Jourdan; N. Kalantarians; C. Keppel; D. Kiselev
We present new measurements of electron scattering from high-momentum nucleons in nuclei. These data allow an improved determination of the strength of two-nucleon correlations for several nuclei, including light nuclei where clustering effects can, for the first time, be examined. The data also include the kinematic region where three-nucleon correlations are expected to dominate.
Physical Review D | 2012
X. Qian; Aixin Tan; Wen-Wen Wang; J. J. Ling; R. D. McKeown; C. Zhang
Statistical methods of presenting experimental results in constraining the neutrino mass hierarchy (MH) are discussed. Two problems are considered and are related to each other: how to report the findings for observed experimental data, and how to evaluate the ability of a future experiment to determine the neutrino mass hierarchy, namely, sensitivity of the experiment. For the first problem where experimental data have already been observed, the classical statistical analysis involves constructing confidence intervals for the parameter Δm^2_(32). These intervals are deduced from the parent distribution of the estimation of Δm^2_(32) based on experimental data. Due to existing experimental constraints on |Δm^2_(32)|, the estimation of Δm^2_(32) is better approximated by a Bernoulli distribution (a Binomial distribution with 1 trial) rather than a Gaussian distribution. Therefore, the Feldman- Cousins approach needs to be used instead of the Gaussian approximation in constructing confidence intervals. Furthermore, as a result of the definition of confidence intervals, even if it is correctly constructed, its confidence level does not directly reflect how much one hypothesis of the MH is supported by the data rather than the other hypothesis. We thus describe a Bayesian approach that quantifies the evidence provided by the observed experimental data through the (posterior) probability that either one hypothesis of MH is true. This Bayesian presentation of observed experimental results is then used to develop several metrics to assess the sensitivity of future experiments. Illustrations are made using a simple example with a confined parameter space, which approximates the MH determination problem with experimental constraints on the |Δm^2_(32)|.
Physics Letters B | 2011
X. Zhan; A. Rakhman; J. Glister; A. J. Sarty; B. Sawatzky; R. Subedi; R. J. Holt; B. E. Norum; Y. Qiang; J. Arrington; Y. Zhang; S. May-Tal Beck; R. D. Ransome; M. Shabestari; R. Gilman; C. Dutta; K. Chirapatpimol; K. Hafidi; E. Fuchey; J.-O. Hansen; K. Allada; E. Schulte; E. Piasetzky; D. Protopopescu; S. Strauch; P. Reimer; E. Chudakov; A. Shahinyan; R. De Leo; Günter Huber
Abstract We report a new, high-precision measurement of the proton elastic form factor ratio μ p G E / G M for the four-momentum transfer squared Q 2 = 0.3 – 0.7 ( GeV / c ) 2 . The measurement was performed at Jefferson Lab (JLab) in Hall A using recoil polarimetry. With a total uncertainty of approximately 1%, the new data clearly show that the deviation of the ratio μ p G E / G M from unity observed in previous polarization measurements at high Q 2 continues down to the lowest Q 2 value of this measurement. The updated global fit that includes the new results yields an electric (magnetic) form factor roughly 2% smaller (1% larger) than the previous global fit in this Q 2 range. We obtain new extractions of the proton electric and magnetic radii, which are 〈 r E 2 〉 1 / 2 = 0.875 ± 0.010 fm and 〈 r M 2 〉 1 / 2 = 0.867 ± 0.020 fm . The charge radius is consistent with other recent extractions based on the electron–proton interaction, including the atomic hydrogen Lamb shift measurements, which suggests a missing correction in the comparison of measurements of the proton charge radius using electron probes and the recent extraction from the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift.
Journal of Physics G | 2016
J. Ashenfelter; A. B. Balantekin; H. R. Band; G. Barclay; C. D. Bass; D. Berish; L. J. Bignell; N. S. Bowden; A. Bowes; J. P. Brodsky; C. D. Bryan; J. J. Cherwinka; R. Chu; T. Classen; K. Commeford; A. Conant; D. Davee; D. J. Dean; G. Deichert; M. V. Diwan; M. J. Dolinski; J. Dolph; M. Duvernois; Anna Erickson; M. T. Febbraro; J. K. Gaison; A. Galindo-Uribarri; K. Gilje; A. Glenn; B. W. Goddard
The Precision Reactor Oscillation and Spectrum Experiment, PROSPECT, is designed to make a precise measurement of the antineutrino spectrum from a highly-enriched uranium reactor and probe eV-scale sterile neutrinos by searching for neutrino oscillations over meter-long distances. PROSPECT is conceived as a 2-phase experiment utilizing segmented
Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics | 2015
X. Qian; P. Vogel
^6
Physical Review D | 2015
M. Bass; M. Bishai; D. Cherdack; M. V. Diwan; Z. Djurcic; J. Hernandez; B. Lundberg; V. Paolone; X. Qian; R. Rameika; L. Whitehead; R. J. Wilson; E. Worcester; G. P. Zeller
Li-doped liquid scintillator detectors for both efficient detection of reactor antineutrinos through the inverse beta decay reaction and excellent background discrimination. PROSPECT Phase I consists of a movable 3-ton antineutrino detector at distances of 7 - 12 m from the reactor core. It will probe the best-fit point of the
European Physical Journal Plus | 2011
H. Gao; L. Gamberg; J. P. Chen; X. Qian; Y. Qiang; M. Huang; Andrei Afanasev; M. Anselmino; H. Avakian; G. D. Cates; E. Chudakov; E. Cisbani; C. W. de Jager; F. Garibaldi; B. T. Hu; X. Jiang; K.S. Kumar; X. M. Li; H.J. Lu; Z.-E. Meziani; B. Q. Ma; Y. J. Mao; J. C. Peng; A. Prokudin; Marc Schlegel; P. A. Souder; Z. G. Xiao; Y. Ye; L. Zhu
\nu_e