1 / 25

Beam n e ’s from antineutrinos – Update –

Part 1: n from m + reweighing Part 2: New ideas. Beam n e ’s from antineutrinos – Update –. David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa. November 13 th 2006. Nearly all come from m + → e + + n e + n m. True energy of true n m at the ND. Reminder.

alda
Download Presentation

Beam n e ’s from antineutrinos – Update –

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Part 1: n from m+ reweighing • Part 2: New ideas Beam ne’s from antineutrinos – Update – David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa November 13th 2006

  2. Nearly all come from m+→ e+ + ne + nm True energy of true nm at the ND Reminder • One of the backgrounds in neanalysis: intrinsic beam ne‘s • Need to tag antineutrinos coming from m+ decay: Ecut This is what we are trying to measure Very little contribution from µ+ above this energy (Ecut) • The technique: E (GeV) Need high purity at low E

  3. n from m+ reweighting reweighed MC n from m+ raw MC raw MC reweighed MC • Suggested in last collaboration meeting. • Used SKZP “a la Boston” to reweigh the p+ and K+ parents of the m+: (1.93x1019 POT) • Used carrot and thus required mupi trees (thanks Chris!)

  4. pt pt p+ K+ pz pz Why so little change? • Plotted p+,K+ weights as a function of pt, pz to make sure no error: • The m+ parents get weights very close to 1: p+ p+parents(# events) m+parent type (p+ ~ 96%) K+

  5. Current status (see minos-doc 2218) • Overall technique: • Main idea of scaling methods (cf. minos-doc 1971) is: No reweighting applied to the MC • Scale method 1: C(E) from horn-off data/MC ratio, Ecut < E < Ehigh • Scale method 2: C(E) from horn-off data/MC ratio, Elow < E < Ecut • Stan’s method: C(E) from horn-off data/MC ratio, all E • Scale method 4: C(E) from horn-on data/MC ratio, E > Ecut • Scale method 5 (retired): C(E) from horn-on data/MC ratio, all E • Main idea of fit method is: Results in next slide were obtained with Ecut = 10 GeV, Elow = 4 GeV and Ehigh = 16 GeV

  6. Current status (see minos-doc 2218) Expected to be highly negative by construction Should be real nubars from m+ if data/MC from horn-off is trust- worthy in this region Should be ~0 by construction Note: le010z185i data POT=1.93x1019 le010z000i data POT=2.77x1018 Should be real nubars from m+ • “Scale method 5” was removed. See first two backup slides for more details. • Fit method needs to be revisited: • SKZP “a la Boston” not very appropriate for antineutrinos since not much variation in pt,pz space. • Considerable fraction of antineutrinos not produced in target (cf. minos-docs 2042 and 2376)

  7. New ideas • How about using the pHE data? • Antineutrinos from m+ are the only ones affected by focusing (?) • Can do pHE-LE and extract the two m+ components that way (?) p- K KL m+ pME LE Plots scaled to 1.0x1020 POT All plots until slide 10 are true E of true antineutrinos. All available stats for pHE pHE

  8. n from p-,K-: n from m+ n from p-,K- LE ME pHE • Indeed m+ component is considerably affected by focusing: • But also significant differences in the other components: LE pHE LE/pHE ratio

  9. Where are the p-,K- differences coming from? (See backup slide on antineutrino provenance for more information) Plots made by A. Himmel from Caltech

  10. LE/pHE ratio for plots in previous slide: Note: error bars are probably wrong Plots made by A. Himmel from Caltech

  11. all n from p-,K- n from p-,K- NC What about using the pME data? nubar-PID in pME • Checked that nubar-PID selection does as good in pME as in LE: For now neglecting ~0.3% difference in purity between LE and pME • Antineutrinos from p-,K- are almost identical in LE and pME ! pME - LE LE pME Selected events at 1.9x1019 POT

  12. n from p-,K- n from p-,K- n from m+ n from m+ • Checked with SKZP reweighing, just in case: pME – LE LE pME (reweighed) Selected events at 1.9x1019 POT • Idea is to take (pME-LE) data difference and fit with MC shapes using two scaling parameters “parLE” and “parME”: pME-LE Fit pME LE

  13. n from p-,K- n from p-,K- n from m+ n from m+ How well could this work? • Use fitted shapes instead of histograms: LE pME Selected events at 1.0x1018 POT LE pME

  14. n from p-,K- n from m+ infinite MC statistics (pME and LE) infinite LE data statistics • Assume: • Create fake pME data set for 1e18 POT by fluctuating smooth histograms with Poisson stats. For example: pME fluct Sum of these two is fake pME data set fluct pME

  15. (pME-LE) fake data set as a function of pME POT: (pME-LE)FAKE at 1e18 POT (pME-LE)SMOOTH at 1e18 POT pME POT (pME-LE)FAKE at 1e20 POT (pME-LE)FAKE at 1e19 POT

  16. (n from p-,K-)ME (n from p-,K-)LE n from m+ n from m+ • Used TMinuit with MIGRAD for the fit, with two parameters “parLE” and “parME” • Used • parLE and parME are started at 1.0 and cannot be negative. Fit fake data set with pME LE This is an example for pME-POT=1e18

  17. Fake data set and fit are repeated 5,000 times. • Could this work with our current amount of pME POT ~ 1e18 ? • Does not work at this POT !

  18. What about 1e19 POT ?

  19. At other values of pME POT: 2.5e19 POT 5e19 POT 1e20 POT 7.5e19 POT

  20. What about systematics? • One systematic is our assessment of (n from p-,K-)ME - (n from p-,K-)LE: • Need to get this from MC and not from fit (need more pME stats) • Proper way to estimate error might be looking how much variation with reweighing. • Had a preliminary look by not correcting for at all: (n from p-,K-)ME - (n from p-,K-)LE • Other systematics (cross-sections, … etc)could be assessed by varying shape of spectra.

  21. Almost no variation observed when reweighted n from m+ Summary & Ongoing work • Have our 5 semi-independent methods for assessing n’s from m+: • Fit method needs more work. Currently trying to converge on the best fit for antineutrinos in nubar group. • New idea of using the MC shapes to fit the (pME-LE) difference: • Allows to cancel many unknowns in n’s from p-,K- • Preliminary study shows measurement is possible to ~20% with ~2.5e19 POT of pME data • pME data may be useful for other analyses • Need more pHE MC statistics to see if we can do something similar with the pHE data.

  22. Backup slides

  23. Why “Scaling method 5” was thrown away: Overall method: Main idea of scaling methods is:  In Scale Method 5 C(E) was approximated with Pol 4th deg

  24. Let be the fraction of m+ in the n spectrum (Data) Let be the fraction of m+ in the n spectrum (MC) Then we have: thus giving: But if then This method implied assuming fDATA = fMC

  25. Antineutrino provenance:

More Related