1 / 7

Selection :

1) Horn off data vs. Horn off MC. Selection : i) Used “basic cuts” described in my NuBarPID talk (slide 3). 74.4% of CC events pass this cut. ii) Used David’s PID cut at -0.2 to remove NC. iii)Used NuBarPID cut at 0.27 for antineutrino selection.

emery
Download Presentation

Selection :

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. 1) Horn off data vs. Horn off MC. Selection: i) Used “basic cuts” described in my NuBarPID talk (slide 3). 74.4% of CC events pass this cut. ii) Used David’s PID cut at -0.2 to remove NC. iii)Used NuBarPID cut at 0.27 for antineutrino selection. NuBar-PID selection “trained” with horn off data (performs a little better than with horns on). nu CC nubar CC NC (dashed) Cut gives efficiency 85.3% and purity 94.2% (efficiency does not include 73% of basic cuts) NuBar-PID Also required |horn-current| < 0.5 for the data as a safety check.

  2. MC Data Horn off data analyzed was 2.2546e18 POT (this is 81% of the horn off data sample… did not use the entire 100% set yet due to technical difficulties, but will soon). Scaled the MC to this same amount, and compared: Errors in MC are due to the amount of statistics used. Will use the entire MC sample soon.

  3. Taking the ratio of Data/MC we get: Errors may not be very correct since didn’t use any for data So far, doesn’t look like discrepancy is going to be so big, although it looks like MC underestimates data in the peak. Besides working on using all available statistics (both data and MC), how to proceed from here?

  4. 2) Mu+ contribution to the nubar flux. Horn off MC compared with Horn on MC: (L010185 compared with L010000)  true energy of true antineutrinos This plot is scaled to 0.1e20 POT

  5. If we separate the parent contribution to the nubar flux we get: Horn ON Horn OFF I confirm what you found, i.e. that the mu+ contribution is practically gone for the Horn OFF MC. The question is, are these mu+ being focused by the 2nd horn?

  6.  In order to answer this, generated 1e7 POT of flux with horn 2 OFF  Looked at the flux in the ND: Normal LE010185 flux Horn 2 OFF LE010185 flux These plots have been scaled to 5.0e5 POT Units in vertical axis give the ND flux per m2 per 5.0e5POT

  7. Plotting the mu+ contributions one next to each other we get: Mu+ contributions Normal Horn-2 OFF  Conclusion: Not all mu+ are focused by the 2nd horn, but only about ~3/5. The remaining mu+ must be focused by the 1st horn.

More Related