1 / 24

Beam n e ’s from antineutrinos using the pME and LE beams

This article discusses a technique to measure neutrinos from antineutrinos using pME and LE beams, and addresses systematics and uncertainties. It presents data from experiments and explores ongoing work.

Download Presentation

Beam n e ’s from antineutrinos using the pME and LE beams

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. Beam ne’s from antineutrinos using the pME and LE beams David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa • Part 1: Reminder and update • Part 2: Change in technique • Part 3: Systematics December 8th 2006

  2. Idea is that n spectrum is almost identical in the LE and pME configurations except for the m+ component: n from p-,K- n from p-,K- n from m+ Reminder • Goal is to measure n from m+ pME - LE LE pME diff Selected events at 1.9x1019 POT LE ME pHE

  3. (n from p-,K-)ME (n from p-,K-)LE n from m+ n from m+ (pME-LE)”TRUE” at 1e18 POT • So take the pME-LE difference • And fit with two parameters: pME LE • To make feasibility study, get “true” distributions by fitting raw MC:

  4. Change in technique • Now the fit is done “manually”: parLE=1 parME=1 parLE=0 parME=1 parLE=0.5 parME=2 1) Generate typically 40,000 “expected histograms” Ei for different combinations of parLE and parME parLE=2 parME=0.5 parLE=1 parME=0 … etc 2) Generate fake data by fluctuating pME “data” Di antineutrinos with a Poisson (assume ∞ MC and LE data) 3) Compare the fake data with each expected histogram by means of a chi-squared: (pME-LE)FAKE at 1e19 POT (Note: not using first bin) 4) Steps 2 and 3 are repeated 5000 times. 5) Get average c2 and subtract the minimum

  5. For example, at 2.5x1019 POT of pME data: 68.27% 90 % • At each fake experiment get best fit parameters: 24% measurement !

  6. n from m+, LE n from m+, pME • Statistical sensitivity of the method vs. pME-POT: preliminary Details available in backup plots • Promising. Maybe can improve considerably by relaxing cuts. • What about systematics? 2 types: 1) Not getting the right (pME-LE)p,K from MC 2) Not getting the right shape(s) from MC.

  7. Small correction of differences in p-,K- contributions to n spectrum needs to be obtained from MC. (n from p-,K-)ME (n from p-,K-)LE LE pME Systematics If correction is 50% too low If correction is 50% too high • Vary contribution of difference by ±50%: 2.5x1019 POT 2.5x1019 POT • More generally: Observed no strong dependence in POT Note: true correction may be different than the one used here. Need more MC

  8. n cross-section energy dependence has big uncertainty at low E • What if we don’t have the right shape? (plot by Donna Naples) • Estimating an error on the cross-section shape is hard. See talk in physics simulations parallel session.

  9. disn qen resn • For now just try to be on safe side: Varied cross-section parameters ma_qe, ma_res and kno_r (all) by 50%, 50% and 20% respectively ma_res x 1.5 ratio ma_res x 0.5 ma_qe x 1.5 ratio ratio ma_qe x 0.5 ma_qe*1.5 ma_res*1.5 kno_r*1.2 effect in total cross-section(modif cs / nominal cs) ma_qe*0.5 ma_res*0.5 kno_r*0.8

  10. n from p-,K- n from p-,K- n from m+ n from m+ • Effect of simultaneously increasing ma_qe, ma_res and kno_r (all) in the “true” data ( normal, with systematic): LE pME LE pME

  11. #antineutrinos from m+ predicted by fit, LE sucLE = #antineutrinos from m+ in fake data, LE #antineutrinos from m+ predicted by fit, pME sucME = #antineutrinos from m+ in fake data, pME • Performed the fit and introduced “success” parameters: 2.5x1019 POT 2.5x1019 POT ma_qe*1.5 ma_res*1.5 kno_r*1.2 ma_qe*0.5 ma_res*0.5 kno_r*0.8 • With these (huge) variations in the cross-section, introduced a bias of only -2.3% and +10% (independent of POT). • With a more conservative scenario of varying ma_qe, ma_res and kno_r by 15%, 15% and 10% respectively, introduce a bias of ±2%

  12. n from m+, LE n from m+, pME Summary & Ongoing work • Need to look into cross-sections a bit more to understand better and get a realistic estimate of shape uncertainty. • Being fairly conservative, and assuming we know (pME-LE)p,K to 30% and a 10% systematic (8% in pME) due to cross-section shape uncertainty we get: preliminary • Empty markers are for statistical uncertainty only • Horizontal lines are systematic limits. • Need more pHE MC statistics to see if we can do something similar with the pHE data.

  13. Backup

  14. 1x1019 POT, no systematics 68.27% 90 %

  15. 2.5x1019 POT, no systematics 68.27% 90 %

  16. 5x1019 POT, no systematics 68.27% 90 %

  17. 7.5x1019 POT, no systematics 68.27% 90 %

  18. 1.0x1020 POT, no systematics 68.27% 90 %

  19. n from p-,K- n from p-,K- n from m+ n from m+ • Effect of simultaneously decreasing ma_qe, ma_res and kno_r (all) in the “true” data ( normal, with systematic): LE pME LE pME

  20. #antineutrinos from m+ predicted by fit, LE sucLE = #antineutrinos from m+ in fake data, LE #antineutrinos from m+ predicted by fit, pME n from m+ n from m+ sucME = #antineutrinos from m+ in fake data, pME “real” data fit • When simultaneously increasing parameters: 2.5x1019 POT • Introduce the “success” parameters: 2.5x1019 POT • Found the right result to 2.3% ! Observed no dependence with POT LE pME

  21. “real” data fit • Now simultaneously scale down ma_qe, ma_res and kno_r (all) by 50%, 50% and 20% respectively: effect in total cross-section • Fit gives, at 2.5x1019 POT: 2.5x1019 POT • Got it right to ~10%: Observed almost no dependence in POT (see backup)

  22. CS systematics (ma_qe + ma_res down by 50%, kno_r down by 20%) 1x1019 POT 5x1019 POT 7.5x1019 POT

  23. 1x1020 POT CS systematics (ma_qe + ma_res up by 50%, kno_r up by 20%) 1x1019 POT 5x1019 POT

  24. 7.5x1019 POT 1x1020 POT CS systematics (ma_qe + ma_res up/down by 15%, kno_r by 10%) ma_qe*1.15 ma_res*1.15 kno_r*1.1 2.5x1019 POT ma_qe*0.85 ma_res*0.85 kno_r*0.9

More Related