1 / 12

CC Analysis: Summary of Progress & Plans

CC Analysis: Summary of Progress & Plans. Jeff Nelson MINOS Meeting Oxford Jan 4, 06. Outline. Where were we in October? What was done to get us here? Plans for today Some notes on beyond if Jenny didn’t say them all. Coming out of the Summer.

eddy
Download Presentation

CC Analysis: Summary of Progress & Plans

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. CC Analysis:Summary of Progress & Plans Jeff Nelson MINOS MeetingOxford Jan 4, 06

  2. Outline • Where were we in October? • What was done to get us here? • Plans for today • Some notes on beyond if Jenny didn’t say them all

  3. Coming out of the Summer • It was recognized at the WIW05 MINOS collaboration meeting that the experiment would likely reach the 1020 POT milestone before the end of the year • The goals with this dataset could be • Demonstrate we are running with the correct beam tune • Make a measurement with comparable sensitivity to K2K confirm the mass splitting observed by Super-K, MACRO, Soudan 2 & K2K • Generate an initial publication in 2006

  4. Mileposts • In March @ Argonne • First ND events • In June @ Ely • First FD events & First results on the energy scan • October @ FNAL • Feedback from the collaboration included: • The simulations and data were not yet in sufficient understood to warrant opening the box. • A number of issues in flux, MC, generator, reconstruction defined & paths to address these issues • Should be addressed before trying to move on with the analysis • Wanting for a specification for the allowable errors & full ensemble of errors • Insufficient time to digest the analysis results at the meeting • No full specification of data / MC agreement to ensure unbiased N/F extrapolation • Final discussion for opening the box needed to take place in a collaboration meeting

  5. Immediately after the meeting… • Physics, RECO, MC, beam systematics, batch & validation WGs met • Developed • A set of changes • A plan to proceeding to a reprocessing of new data/MC by Dec 9

  6. MC Full field updates 3D ND model & fixes to FD Field maps in the coil & collars for the first time Coil hole in scintillator Changes to accommodate new flux and NEUGEN Beam Implement fluka05 & MARS Eliminate need for WFLUK 10x statistics Geometry revisions NEUGEN Many results from retuning process DIS Charm Inverse muon decay CC coherent Updates to intranuke Reweighting fixes Changes Since October (I)

  7. RECO Sub PE cut “Late” strip cut Sub shower timing requirement Chi2 change New shower energy scale tuning Post processing Shower calibration Small residuals Momentum scale calibration More data sets processed Current scan Energy scan Single events Changes Since October (II)

  8. Position papers • To document the current state of the state of simulations, data analysis, and analysis procedures • Required level of agreement between ND data and MC necessary to ensure valid extrapolation from ND to FD • Agreement between ND MC and data Level of calibration achieved • Level of confidence in beam simulation • Checks on FD data before box opening • Neutrino generator • Flux measurement • Specification of the oscillation fit • Decision points & actions

  9. Steps to Get to Today • Goal • All things posted for review in advance of the meeting • Mostly accomplished • Nov 15: outlines of papers • Nov 22: drafts, posted in doc-db • Summarized at either CC or ND/beam systematics working group meetings • Comments on solicited at meetings & to the degree possible addressed • Dec 6: last data for the data set • Dec 17: processing complete • Dec 19: Final versions of the documents were due • Changes after that point with the goal of “topping off” of the analysis either with more data or new sets that came in after that deadline • Collaborators are encouraged to submit comments, suggestions, and concerns on the documents and their scope • Editors and working groups time to address what comments they can in advance of the collaboration meeting • Jan 2: The “freeze” papers

  10. Where are we ? • Huge amount of work to show for the 11 weeks before Christmas • Completed reprocessing on Dec 17th • 320 pages of position papers & new major supporting documents • 53 working group meetings • 75 hours of presentations & discussions • Roughly 80 posted papers & talks • Remarkable accomplishment by a substantial fraction of the collaboration ! • Let’s talk…

  11. Today • Executive summaries of the position papers • Goal is time for discussion • Ask questions of clarification during talks • Time allocated after each talk for discussion • Presentations completed today • Expect the box-opening discussion tomorrow morning

  12. Questions • Is the required level of agreement between data & MC adequately specified for this exposure? • Do the ND & FD MC & data show agreement at a level that permits “opening the box” to fit for oscillation parameters? • Is the specified fitting plan sufficient evaluation of statistical and systematic significance of the resulting parameter measurements? • Accumulation of action items

More Related